Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords],

Bill to be read a Second time.

Huddersfield Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Bill [Lords],

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at Half-past Seven of the Clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKERS' HOURS AND HOLIDAYS.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the decision of the French Government to introduce legislation for the 40-hour week, without wage reductions, payment for holidays, and the establishment of collective contracts in industry; and whether he will introduce similar legislation in this country?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am aware of the legislation now under consideration in France. In this country the regulation of hours

and conditions of labour by collective agreement is a well-established practice, and I am satisfied that in general the permanent advantage of the employed population will be more adequately secured by the continuance and development of this practice, rather than by the attempt to enforce rigid statutory requirements.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Minister not aware that Belgium has followed the example of France in the matter of the 40-hour week; and will he not make an effort to bring this old backward country into line with that advance?

Mr. BROWN: The advance at the moment is only on paper.

Mr. JAGGER: Would the Minister take action if we did what the French did?

Mr. LEACH: Has the Minister no remorse at all about this matter?

Mr. BROWN: There is no need for remorse.

Mr. LAWSON: asked the Minister of Labour (1) the Government's policy in respect to the reduction of miners' hours by international arrangement;
(2) the Government's attitude towards the reduction of hours by international arrangement?

Mr. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to the speech which I made last week at the International Labour Conference at Geneva in which the relevant views of His Majesty's Government were stated, and in which special reference was made to the following industries: iron and steel, building, textiles and coal mining. The speech will be published in due course in the record of the conference; in the meantime I am placing a few copies in the Library.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not the fact that there are fewer men employed now, by a considerable number, than were employed only a few years ago?

Mr. BROWN: That has nothing to do with this question.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it a fact that there are 100,000 fewer workpeople at work than there were a few years ago; and have the Government no remedy for a situation of that kind, when proposals


are being made throughout Europe, in the international sphere, for the reduction of hours in order to absorb unemployed workers?

Mr. BROWN: That is another issue. I have pointed out in reply to the question that a statement of the Government's views has been made in full, and I would refer the hon. Member to it.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: In view of what the Minister says, and in view of the constant decline in employment in the mining industry, will the Government not consider a reduction of hours in order to meet that decline?

Mr. BROWN: That is now being dealt with.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it adds to the dignity of his office to give deliberately misleading figures?

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Mr. ROWSON: asked the Minister of Labour the reasons why His Majesty's Government are not represented on the committee dealing with coal mines and working hours of miners underground at present sitting at the International Labour Conference at Geneva?

Mr. BROWN: The Committee on Coal Mines was set up to consider the application to the Coal Mining Industry of the 1935 40-hour week draft Convention of principle, and, as I explained in a speech made to the International Labour Conference on 9th June, the view of His Majesty's Government is that the principles set forth in that draft Convention are not acceptable in Great Britain. Moreover I would point out that the Draft Convention limiting Hours of Work in Coal Mines, as revised in 1935, remains unratified. In these circumstances it was felt that the representative of His Majesty's Government should not endeavour to secure membership of the committee. I should add that the number of Government representatives to sit on the committee was determined by the International Labour Conference and that the number of applications made by Governments for representation on the committee equalled the number of places to be filled.

Mr. ROWSON: Is it not a fact that the Governments of the United States and France are represented on this committee and that they have expressed resentment at the attitude of the British Government?

Mr. BROWN: I do not think that is so. The House will understand that we are represented on other committees on which they are not represented.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is not the failure to ratify this important Convention due to the failure of this Government?

Mr. BROWN: It is not.

Miss CAZALET: asked the Minister of Labour how many trades and industries grant annual holidays, with and without pay, to their employés?

Mr. CARY: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is possible for the Ministry of Labour to ascertain the percentage of businesses in this country which provide holidays for their workpeople with full pay; those businesses which only give partially paid holidays; and those businesses which only allow holidays without pay?

Mr. BROWN: A list of the industries in which collective agreements are known to be in operation providing for annual holidays with pay for manual workers was given in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for April, 1936. The number of manual workers covered by such agreements cannot be stated exactly, but is estimated at about 1,500,000. The only information in the possession of my Department is that derived from these collective agreements, and information is not available as to the extent to which paid holidays are granted by employers in other industries, or as to how far holidays are granted with partial pay or without pay.

Miss CAZALET: Does not my right hon. Friend think it extremely desirable that all employers should grant annual holidays to their employés?

Mr. BROWN: That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the great interest and importance of this question, will the right hon. Gentleman consider obtaining statistics from all the trades in the country to see how far this system


is already in operation, and how far we have yet to go?

Mr. BROWN: I will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EXCHANGES (RECRUITING).

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken by the managers of Employment Exchanges to recommend the fighting services as potential careers to unemployed young men in addition to the display of recruiting posters; and whether he will consider the advisability of issuing revised instructions in this connection?

Mr. E. BROWN: The arrangements which are being made for the display of posters and for the supply of pamphlets and leaflets and other information on request will give every facility for persons attending the exchanges to make themselves acquainted with the opportunities offered by the Forces.

Captain PLUGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the officers are encouraged to give personal advice to applicants in this matter?

Mr. BROWN: That is not the purpose of the exchanges.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Would it be possible to get a wireless message from Luxemburg?

MINING DISTRICTS.

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Minister of Labour whether, apart from the recommendations of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, the Government have any proposals to make for the removal of unemployment among the mining population in the county of Durham?

Mr. E. BROWN: As to the general policy of the Government on the means of reducing unemployment I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on 27th February. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) as to the anticipated effect on employment of the Government's programme of making good defence deficiencies in the North-East Coast and other areas suffering from prolonged and severe unemployment.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question relates specifically to unemployment among the mining population; and are we to understand that the Government armaments programme is devised not only in respect of the absorption of the unemployed generally, but also of the unemployed in the mining community?

Mr. BROWN: If any industry gets going it is of advantage to the coal industry.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not true, according to figures presented by his own Department, that unemployment is increasing among the mining population?

Mr. BROWN: That is not so. Unemployment has not increased. The figures for 22nd May, 1933, for Durham were 57,432; for 14th May, 1934, 39,139; for 30th May, 1935, 31,637 and for 25th May, 1936, 26,950.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to tell the House that unemployment throughout the coalfields, including Durham, is actually on the decrease, and will he present a White Paper to the House in support of the figures which he has just given?

Mr. BROWN: I shall be very glad to give the full figures for Great Britain if the House wants them. I can give the figures for Great Britain for the same periods. On 22nd May, 1933, the number of insured persons unemployed in the coal mining industry in Great Britain was 395,686; on 14th May, 1934, 293,204; on 20th May, 1935, 262,879; on 25th May, 1936, 216,676.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must understand that we cannot have a debate on this subject at Question Time.

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest available opportunity.

ALLOWANCES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants for allowances to the Unemployment Assistance Board who have been dealt with under Sections 40 and 41 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, as cases of special difficulty?

Mr. E. BROWN: The board informs me that the latest figures available show that 57 applicants for allowances have been dealt with under Section 40 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934. No applicants have been dealt with under Section 41 of the Act.

Mr. LAWSON: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information at his disposal to show whether the payment of unemployment allowances under the Standstill Order has resulted in any abuse of public money?

Mr. BROWN: Yes, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the report of the Unemployment Assistance Board issued on Tuesday.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government were responsible for the Standstill Order, and is not that a criticism of the Government?

Mr. BROWN: I do not think it is. I understand that that is presently to be dealt with.

Mr. BEVAN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: There are a large number of questions.

Mr. LAWSON: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that this very serious statement is made in an important Government document, and we are asking questions in order to elicit information from the Minister about it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot attach any more importance to this particular question than to any other. All these supplementary questions take up far too much time.

DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN (CAR PARKS).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in a number of towns local branches of the Motor Traders' Association are successfully bringing pressure on town councils to close municipal car parks in the neighbourhood of garages; and whether, as the supply of car park attendants is one of the main sources of employment for disabled ex-service men, he will consult with the British Legion so as to concert with them measures to discourage such action?

Mr. E. BROWN: I am not aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he will send me particulars I shall be pleased to consider, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, whether there is any action which I could usefully take.

NUTRITION (CHILDREN'S HOLIDAY CAMPS).

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, during 1936, 24,000 children from the distressed areas who were sent to holiday reconditioning camps conducted by the National Council of Social Service and allied organisations increased in weight by an average of 3.48 lbs. per fortnight; whether he can state the daily quantity of milk, butter, and cheese provided by the dietary scale, compared with the average per capita consumption of these foods by the population as a whole, also the cost per head; and whether, in view of the success of the experiment, he is proposing to continue or enlarge the work of the camps this year?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I am aware that a substantial number of children attended these camps, and that a general increase in weight was reported. Good, varied, and plentiful food was supplied, but no exact dietary scale was adopted from which scientific conclusions can be drawn. The camps are being extended this year with grants from the Commissioner for the Special Areas, and it is hoped to accommodate over 40,000 children from the Special Areas in school camps this summer.

Mr. KERR: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, during 1935, 24,000 children from the distressed areas sent to holiday reconditioning camps gained in weight, on average, 3.48 lbs. per fortnight; that the dietary scale included a ration of milk, butter, and cheese considerably in excess of the ration provided for the children in many local authority institutions; and whether he will recommend a similarly generous rationing to all authorities controlling children's homes, hospitals, and public institutions?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I understand that the figures given in the first part of the question are approximately accurate; but I have no information which would con-


firm the suggestion contained in the second part. My hon. Friend may be assured that my Department are fully alive to the importance of securing that the diets provided in public assistance institutions are adequate to the children's needs, and I am sending him a copy of a report on this subject which was circulated to local authorities for their guidance some years ago.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: In view of the appalling condition of affairs revealed in the annual report of the National Council for Social Service regarding the physical condition of the children in the depressed areas, will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is prepared to take to see that a ration of milk is supplied to babies from one day to five years of age?

Sir K. WOOD: My answer dealt with the specific matter raised in the question. If the hon. Gentleman will put his question down, I will answer it.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (HULL).

Mr. MUFF: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the large numbers of unemployed still in the Hull area, he will now reconsider the question of instructing the various Government Departments to place portions of their contracts in that district?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): It is the practice of Departments in placing contracts to give a preference, other things being equal, to areas suffering from severe and prolonged unemployment. Although Hull is not included in the list of such areas, firms in. Hull are in no way debarred from tendering for, or obtaining, Government contracts.

Mr. MUFF: Will the Chancellor allow the Hull Employment Exchange to recruit labour from its own borders and not compel it to recruit labour from outside areas, so-called depressed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is entirely a matter for Hull.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE.

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement on the financial position of the International Labour Office; what were the

receipts in 1935 and how this compared with expenditure; and whether the percentage of the contributions due for the year 1935 which were actually paid compared favourably with the percentage for 1934?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the year 1935 receipts brought to account were 9,913,262 gold francs and the expenditure was 8,599,119 gold francs, leaving a cash surplus of 1,314,143 gold francs. Of the contributions due from States members of the League of Nations for the year 1935, 88.28 per cent, were paid during that year. The corresponding percentage for the year 1934 was 71.96.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL MEETINGS (POLICE NOTE-TAKERS).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that official note-takers, accompanied by a plain-clothes police escort, took notes at the demonstration of the Youth Peace Assembly at Trafalgar Square, on Sunday, 7th June; whether such note-taking is done at all the meetings of the political parties associated with the present Government; and whether he will take steps to secure the abandonment of this practice involving, as it does, political discrimination and a waste of public funds?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that notes were taken by the police of some of the speeches made on this occasion. It is the practice to take such notes whenever the responsible authorities think that it is desirable to do so. I do not agree that this practice involves any political discrimination or any unnecessary waste of public funds, and I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Commissioner in the matter.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Minister aware that, whenever I speak at a meeting, I have always the pleasure of the company of the police? Although I have made inquiries, I cannot find that the representatives of any parties on the other side are ever interfered with in that way. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is a deliberate interference to have the police round the platform ostentatiously taking notes?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Would the right lion. Gentleman say whether an official shorthand writer was present at the meeting of the 1900 Club addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Would the Home Secretary be so good as to inform the House whether it is the custom of the police to take a note of proceedings at Fascist meetings?

Sir J. SIMON: From time to time that is done, and I had that in mind when I said that there is no political discrimination.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Home Secretary whether pharmacists are to be employed as gas-detection officers; what qualifications they have for the work; and what steps are to be taken to train them to do the work adequately?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My Department has had under consideration a scheme by which persons with a basic knowledge of chemistry might be recruited as gas-detection officers in populous parts of the country. A scheme of instruction has been devised, and the Civilian Anti-Gas School will be available for the purpose.

Mr. EMMOTT: asked the Home Secretary what facilities have been provided in the London area for doctors wishing to obtain instruction in the treatment of poison-gas cases?

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Home Secretary whether any specific instructions have been given to medical practitioners as to their responsibilities and duties in the event of air raids; and whether gasmasks and gas-proof suits have been issued to them in order to enable them to render first-aid in the streets?

Mr. LLOYD: The General Medical Council and the British Medical Association have been consulted on this matter, and arrangements for giving instruction to medical practitioners in the treatment of poison gas cases are under consideration. The Air Raid Precautions Department are accumulating stores of respirators and other means of protection for all public air raid precautionary services.

Mr. SANDYS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether doctors who are not members of the British Medical Association have been told of the facilities which are available?

Mr. LLOYD: A pamphlet is being prepared and will shortly be on sale at the Stationery Office. Of course, the matter the hon. Member has raised is under consideration.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Are the same arrangements being made in other large industrial areas?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes, this applies to the country as a whole.

Mr. COCKS: Will the hon. Gentleman get the latest information from Rome?

Mr. CARTLAND: asked the Home Secretary (1) what steps are being taken to instruct householders as to the methods they can adopt to render their rooms proof against poison gas in the event of air raids;
(2) whether it is his intention to issue recommendations to the general public as to their behaviour in the event of air raids?

Mr. LLOYD: A handbook on the precautionary measures which members of the public should take in the event of air raids is in an advanced state of preparation.

Mr. CARTLAND: Is it the intention of the Home Office to issue a hand book on the lines of the Highway Code?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes, Sir.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will my hon. Friend make sure that it is read, because the Highway Code is not?

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Home Secretary whether all local authorities in the United Kingdom have been asked to participate in air-raid precautionary schemes within their areas; and how many local authorities have intimated officially or semi-officially their unwillingness to co-operate?

Mr. LLOYD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, 14 authorities have informed the Government that they do not propose to co-operate.

Mr. SANDYS: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that certain local authorities, few though they may be, should, for reasons of party prejudice, endanger the safety of the population; and, if not, will he consider taking powers to compel them to co-operate?

Mr. LLOYD: There are over 1,600 local authorities, and, as I pointed out in my answer, only 14 have said that they will not co-operate. I would point out that in the past there were a larger number which took that attitude, but we have witnessed in the last few months a progressive and increasing movement among local authorities, who had previously said they would not co-operate, to realise their responsibilities to the population.

Mr. H. MORRISON: Is it not the case from the hon. Gentleman's experience that these partisan questions in Parliament on this matter do more harm than good?

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is not this a national matter for which the Government are responsible, and should it not be outside the jurisdiction of local authorities?

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Home Secretary what is the estimated annual output of trainees from the new anti-gas school at Eastwood Park operated by the Air Raids Precautions Department of the Home Office; and whether consideration has been given to the desirability of having additional schools in other parts of the country?

Mr. LLOYD: It is hoped that, under present arrangements, the output of the Civilian Anti-Gas School at Falfield in a full year would be in the region of 600 fully-trained instructors, in addition to the provision of short courses for some 250 doctors and other specialists. It has been decided that this output shall be increased, and the steps by which this may be effected are being examined.

Captain PLUGGE: Is the hon. Member aware that many of the more enthusiastic local authorities consider that the number of trained men is not sufficient to cope with the problem?

Mr. LLOYD: I appreciate the hon. and gallant Member's point, but I would point out that every instructor who leaves the anti-gas school is himself capable of

training others. Such an instructor when he returns to his own district can train a class of 20 men in 24 hours of training, and it will be seen that the numbers involved can easily rise to tens of thousands.

Major MILLS: asked the Home Secretary whether the Air Raids Precautions Department have approached or will approach the Port of London Authority to ensure that at any rate some part of the proposed new store sheds may be made bomb and gas-proof with a view to protecting some part of the food supplies stored at the London docks?

Mr. LLOYD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence on this subject on 27th May.

Major MILLS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence referred me to the Home Office?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes, Sir, but he informed the hon. and gallant Member that the Air Raids Precautions Department were taking steps in the matter and have approached the Port of London Authority, who have referred the matter to their chief engineer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TAXI-CAB DRIVERS (SUMMONSES).

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the great increase in the number of summonses issued against London cabmen between 1932 and 1935, and that the supply of licensed cabmen is greatly in excess of the need; and why he has refused to meet a deputation of cabmen on this subject?

Sir J. SIMON: There has been a considerable increase in the number of summonses against cab drivers, but there has also been a substantial increase in the number of summonses against drivers of other classes of motor vehicles, and I am satisfied that the police do not discriminate against cab drivers. The proportion of cab drivers to cabs is 1.41 to 1, and I am advised that in view of the fact that large numbers of cabs are worked two shifts a day, this proportion


cannot be regarded as excessive. As regards the last part of the question, I will send the hon. Member a copy of the reply which I sent to the request for a deputation.

Mr. SORENSEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fact, the number of summonses issued against cab drivers is larger proportionately than those against other drivers?

Sir J. SIMON: No, I do not think so.

ROAD SAFETY (SPECIAL CONSTABLES, WEST RIDING).

Mr. SHORT: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Chief Constable of the West Riding proposes to employ special constables on the regulation of week-end motor traffic; whether they will receive adequate instructions before their employment; whether their services will be voluntary; if not, what will be the rate of remuneration; and whether this proposal has received his assent?

Sir J. SIMON: I am informed by the Chief Constable that as part of the measures for securing safety on the roads he has arranged for special constables to perform a short tour of duty during the current week at known traffic danger spots. They will not be regulating traffic at cross roads, but attempting by their presence and action to secure a better standard of road behaviour and to reduce accidents. No special constable receives pay for his services. The matter is one for the Chief Constable, and I hope that the effort which he and the special constables are making will help to secure the object at which they are aiming.

Mr. BEVAN: For how long are special constables to be used in the discharge of this duty?

Sir J. SIMON: I think special constables have been used for this purpose previously.

ACCIDENTS, BOW ROAD, LONDON.

Mr. LANSBURY: asked the Home Secretary how many fatal and other road accidents have taken place in Bow Road between Burdett Road and Bow Bridge during the past 12 months; and how many for the previous 12 months?

Sir J. SIMON: The number of road accidents involving death or personal

injury recorded by the police as having occurred between Burdett Road and Bow Bridge in the 12 months ended 31st May, 1936, was 130, none of which were fatal, and the number in the preceding 12 months was also 130, four of which were fatal.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's answer. Is it for the 12 months up to 31st December?

Sir J. SIMON: No, in each case it is for the period ending 31st May.

Mr. LANSBURY: Did I understand the the right hon. Gentleman to say that there have been no fatal accidents in the second period?

Sir J. SIMON: In the later period there were no fatal accidents, as I am informed, although in the earlier period there were four.

Mr. LANSBURY: I shall have to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make further inquiries.

Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED PRISONERS (CLOTHING).

Mr. DAY: asked the Home Secretary whether prisoners who have served a long term of imprisonment, and are discharged in the winter months, have an overcoat provided or supplied to them when necessary; and whether it is provided out of public funds?

Sir J. SIMON: Overcoats are not issued except for special medical reasons, but during the winter months governors are authorised to supply cardigan jackets, the cost being met from public funds.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to see whether any further assistance can be given?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE COURTS (MAGISTRATES, ATTENDANCE).

Mr. GARDNER: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in most northern towns the method of summoning magistrates to hear cases in the police courts generally rests with the clerks to the courts; and, in view of the


undesirability of this procedure, whether he will make inquiries into this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: It rests with the justices themselves to arrange for the staffing of each session of the court, and any arrangements made by the clerk are subject to the approval of the bench. At many courts attendance is regulated by a rota. If the suggestion is that the clerk selects particular justices to hear particular cases, I know of no foundation for the suggestion.

Mr. GARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that charge has been made by a responsible member of the legal profession?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not going to define a responsible member of the legal profession, but as a humble but responsible Home Secretary I say that I know of no ground for that suggestion.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that one magistrate who was asleep was summoned the other day?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. J. HALL: asked the Home Secretary the number of local authorities which have made by-laws under Section 18, Sub-section (2, a ii) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, permitting children to be employed before school hours; the number of children so employed; what steps are taken to ensure that such children are not so employed for a period longer than one hour; and if periodical medical examination is insisted upon to ensure the maintenance of a proper standard of health?

Sir J. SIMON: 166 out of 317 local authorities have made by-laws under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, permitting the employment of children for not more than one hour before school commences: similar by-laws made by 50 authorities before the Act remain in force. I have no recent information of the number of children so employed. The duty of enforcing the by-laws rests with the local authorities who always require a medical certificate as a condition of employment. In some cases specific provision is made in the by-laws for periodical re-examination, and, in general, I feel sure that the authorities pay careful attention to the question of health.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman further consider this question of the employment of children before school hours, seeing that many people think it is a very bad thing for them?

Sir J. SIMON: I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that children may be employed, for instance, in the delivery of papers.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that many miners in Yorkshire suffering from accidents and industrial diseases and subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts are frequently certified as being fit for work by the indemnity company's doctor but are refused employment when making application to their employers; and whether this aspect will be the subject of consideration of the Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation?

Sir J. SIMON: I am aware that in the area named miners who have been in receipt of compensation for nystagmus may find this is an obstacle to re-employment, and this aspect of the matter is being considered by the Departmental Committee in connection with their inquiry into compensation for that disease.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this practice is not confined to those who have suffered from nystagmus, but affects also many who have recovered, or partially recovered, from accidents? Has the general question been considered by the Department?

Sir J. SIMON: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will communicate with me about other cases, because I should like to know how much evidence there is of this practice. It would be possible to enlarge the inquiry in case of need.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON CHAPLAINS, WALES.

Mr. GRENFELL: asked the Home Secretary the conditions for the appointment of prison chaplaincies in Wales; and whether, in virtue of the Act of Disestablishment, these appointments have been accessible on equal terms to all religious denominations?

Sir J. SIMON: At neither of the two prisons in Wales is there a whole-time chaplain. In each case a local clergyman of the Church in Wales has been appointed as part-time chaplain for those prisoners who declare themselves members of the Church of England or the Church in Wales. Arrangements are also made for Ministers of other denominations to minister to those prisoners who describe themselves as Roman Catholics or adherents of one of the Free Churches.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether application has been made to him with a view to securing equality of treatment by the Free Churches in Wales, and whether, if he gets evidence of the existence of a substantial volume of public support for a change, he will recommend a change in the law?

Sir J. SIMON: It is a statutory requirement that there should be a clergyman of the Church of England or of the Church of Wales, as the case may be, appointed. I will certainly consider the point he has put, but perhaps I may say that the statistics show that the majority of people in prison in Wales are members of the Church of England.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON SERVICE.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Home Secretary how many prison officers of the subordinate ranks approximately received immediate increases of pay of amounts under 1s, per week each; and how many did not receive an immediate increase in connection with the recent consolidation of pay and bonus?

Sir J. SIMON: I presume that what the hon. Member has in mind is not the consolidation of pay and bonus, which applied to Government servants generally, but the special improvements in the scales of pay of prison officers which came into operation on 1st January. In estimating the advantages resulting from these new scales account must be taken not only of the actual rates of pay but of the accelerated rate of increase, and any figures such as those for which the hon. Member asks would not only be laborious to prepare but would be wholly misleading.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL BUILDING GRANTS.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the President of the Board of Education if, in order to be ready for the raising of the school-leaving age on the proposed date, he is prepared to give building grants beyond the 50 per cent, basis to Special Areas because the effort required to raise the remaining 50 per cent, necessary to provide new buildings will press most hardly on an area such as Durham County?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Provision is already made in the Elementary Education Grant Regulations for the payment of additional grant to necessitous areas. For 1934–35 the amount of such extra grant for the Durham County Council was about £39,000, bringing the total grant paid to them to more than 60 per cent., of their expenditure. I am afraid that I cannot consider any further proposal for altering the grant formula which would involve an increased charge on the Exchequer.

Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even with the 60 per cent, grant a Special Area like Durham, with high rates and low rateable value, will find it practically impossible to raise the necessary funds to remodel existing schools and build new ones, to meet the requirements of the new legislation?

HOME-WOKK.

Mr. BELLENGER: asked the President of the Board of Education when he expects to be in a position to give the House some information concerning the investigations of the consultative committee set up by the Board to inquire into the question of school home-work?

Mr. STANLEY: The investigation to which the hon. Member refers is being made by the Board's inspectors. A report is being prepared, but I am afraid that I cannot yet say when it will be ready.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION (LEICESTERSHIRE).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in certain provided schools in Leicestershire cooking or handicraft rooms are being used for the instruction of children of Church of England parents in the Catechism and the Prayer Book;


and whether such instruction given in such circumstances has the approval of his Department?

Mr. STANLEY: I have no knowledge of the arrangements to which the hon. Member refers. The Board's approval is not required for such arrangements.

Mr. THURTLE: Is this not a breach of the Cowper-Temple Clause, which prohibits the teaching of sectarianism in public schools?

Mr. STANLEY: It is possible to have arrangements of this character which do not conflict with the Cowper-Temple Clause. If the hon. Member is interested, he will find the position fully set out in a letter sent to the Dorset authorities in October, 1928, and in a subsequent letter to the West Riding authorities in the following year. I shall be very glad to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of that correspondence setting out the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MIDWIVES.

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Minister of Health whether he has obtained recently any expert opinions from members of the medical profession as to whether the time and conditions of quarantine in the case of midwives after attending puerperal fever patients are or are not now sufficient, and as to whether the responsible board ought to reconsider the present regulations with a view to amendment?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; any representations on the question of altering the present regulations would be a matter for the Central Midwives' Board. All questions affecting maternal welfare are under constant review by my medical advisers, and I am advised that no evidence has been adduced to show that the rules as to suspension laid down by that board are unsatisfactory in this respect.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the Minister whether there is a woman among his medical advisers?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

WATER SUPPLIES (RURAL AREAS).

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Minister of Health whether there is a shortage of

water in any of the rural areas; and, if so, what action is being taken to arrange for supplies?

Sir K. WOOD: I have this year received complaints from only one rural area, and for that area a scheme of water supply is under construction.

Mr. SMITH: Is any progress being made in that particular matter?

Sir K. WOOD: I will inquire and let the hon. Gentleman know.

RATING.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Minister of Health how many communications he received during the present year from local authorities asking that action should be taken to assist the high-rated industrial towns?

Sir K. WOOD: Various suggestions for financial assistance to the councils of highly-rated areas have been made to me from time to time, but I have no record of communications addressed to me in the specific terms to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. SMITH: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the resolution sent from the city council of Stoke-on-Trent to the effect that the existing system of rating is inequitable and should be carefully considered with the question of land values and amended to meet present-day conditions, and also the resolution of the conference on 7th April at which 60 local authorities were represented; and whether it is proposed to take any action on the lines suggested?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hartley (Mr. Hollins) on 7th May, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the present unfair position of northern towns, will the Minister consider the effect of high rates upon the cost of production?

Sir K. WOOD: I stated in my previous reply that I would be prepared to consider any representations supporting the resolution which local authorities wished to make in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (CARLISLE).

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take action to secure the prosecution of offenders against the law relating to the slaughtering of sheep in the city of Carlisle in proved instances brought to his notice where the humane killer was not used; and what steps he proposes to take to guard against a repetition of this illegal cruelty?

Sir K. WOOD: Section 8 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, places the responsibility of the enforcement of the Act upon the local authority, and I am in communication with the council of the county borough of Carlisle in regard to the allegations referred to in the question.

Mr. MATHERS: Is the Minister expressing his desire that this practice should cease?

Sir K. WOOD: This is, of course, a matter which may ultimately eventuate in proceedings.

Captain DOWER: Is the Minister satisfied that the offences actually happened?

Sir K. WOOD: Certain allegations have been made, and I cannot say whether they are true or not.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Government at the forthcoming meetings at Geneva, after consultation, to give a lead to or to follow the lead of other States with regard to the question of sanctions?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Perhaps the hon. Member will await the Debate which is to take place later this afternoon.

Mr. MANDER: In the course of the Debate this afternoon, will it be made clear whether it is the policy of the British Government to take the lead in running away or to lead in supporting sanctions?

Mr. MANDER: asked the Prime Minister whether the Dominion Governments have been consulted and have all concurred in the British Government's

policy with regard to sanctions against Italy?

The PRIME MINISTER: The fullest possible information of the views of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has been given to the Dominion Governments.

Mr. MANDER: Have they concurred with it, and is it a fact that South Africa is strongly opposed to the raising of sanctions and to the betrayal involved?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not for the Government of the United Kingdom to announce any decision that may have been come to by Dominion Governments. They will themselves make the announcements in due course either to their own Parliaments or at Geneva. I could not answer one isolated question.

Mr. MANDER: Is, it not very important that the House should know?

Mr. COCKS: South Africa will cut the painter.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE (GOVERNMENT MEASURES).

Earl WINTERTON: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the growing gravity of the European and Far Eastern situation, any further steps will be taken to accelerate the expansion of the Defence Forces and the provision of adequate munitions and supplies?

The PRIME MINISTER: Steps are being continuously taken, including the development of plans for still further improving the organisation of supply and for accelerating the expansion of the Defence Forces.

Earl WINTERTON: Does not the very grave statement of the Secretary of State for War, made with all the authority of a Defence Minister, indicate that it is necessary to take yet further emergency action to deal with the situation and for the information of the public?

The PRIME MINISTER: The steps which we have taken are those which His Majesty's Government so far consider to be requisite. They are keeping the House fully informed, and no doubt frequent Debates will take place.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Apart from those steps which the Government


regard as being requisite, can my right hon. Friend give us some assurance that, in the opinion of the Government, they are adequate?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, they are adequate, but, of course, we are anxious to proceed with all speed.

Mr. LANSBURY: Have the Government come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no other course to pursue but to pile up armaments, in preparation for a war which, they have told us, will destroy civilisation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite convinced, as I think I made clear in many speeches on the subject during the Election, that it may be necessary for us to increase armaments in order to play our part in collective security.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will not the Government consider calling together a conference in order to see whether this terrific catastrophe cannot be put off so that discussion can take place, or whether the whole of the civilised nations feel that they must prepare for catastrophic war instead of making an effort for peace?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that, at any rate, part of that question is sure to be discussed during the Debate. I have some observations that I wish to make myself, certainly with regard to one aspect of this question.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the situation is as grave as is represented in this question, and in the speech recently delivered by the Secretary of State for War, will the right hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence, and not leave us in the dark?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can certainly undertake to do that.

Mr. BEVAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House—

Mr. SPEAKER: We are to have a Debate upon this subject later.

Mr. BEVAN: All Front Bench speakers, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE "QUEEN MAEY" (SISTER SHIP).

Mr. J. HENDERSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in

view of public misgiving regarding the economic prospects of the "Queen Mary" and the public money involved, he will make a statement on the financial workings of the liner based on the experience of the first trip?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any public misgiving such as is alleged by the hon. Member. I understand, also, that the results of the working of the "Queen Mary" so far have met the Cunard White Star Company's fullest expectations.

Mr. DAY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any negotiations or conversations are taking place with His Majesty's Government at the present time regarding the construction of a sister ship to the "Queen Mary"; and whether he will give particulars?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received an application from the Cunard White Star Company for authority to use the sum available under the North Atlantic Shipping Act for the construction of a sister ship. After careful examination of the company's reasons, I have agreed to this in principle, but I have reserved rights of further consultation before any contract is signed. The company have obtained preliminary tenders from various yards, and I understand that, after considering them, they are negotiating in the first instance with Messrs. John Brown & Company, Limited, the builders of the "Queen Mary." As I have previously stated, the choice of builder must be a matter for consideration by the company on the relative technical and commercial merits of the case.

Mr. MAGNAY: Will the question whether the River Clyde is big enough to take a sister ship be considered also?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MOTOE CARS (IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES).

Sir GEORGE MITCHESON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the importation of motor cars from the United States of America is now three times as great as it was two years ago; and whether he is prepared to consider a revision of the McKenna duties?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the increase this year in the imports of motor cars from the United States of America as compared with the imports two years ago. As regards the second part of the question, I am unable to say more than that the position in regard to these importations is being kept under review.

RUSSIAN TIMBER SHIPMENTS.

Mr. RANKIN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the small proportion of British vessels employed in bringing timber to this country from Soviet Russia; and why British importers are obliged to take shipments on c.i.f. terms whilst German buyers are able to insist upon buying on f.o.b. terms, and thus retain the right to charter the tonnage themselves?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which were given on 16th June to questions by the hon. Members for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland), Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and Norwood (Mr. Sandys), and on 11th June to the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Sir C. Cayzer).

GERMANY AND YUGOSLAVIA.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the commercial agreement entered into between Germany and Yugoslavia; and whether the terms of this agreement are in any way in conflict with the terms of our commercial treaty with Yugoslavia?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no information regarding the agreement between Germany and Yugoslavia beyond what has appeared in the Press, but I am having inquiries made.

DENMARK.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on the future trading relations with Denmark, having regard to the fact that the Commercial Agreement of 1933 expires on the 20th instant?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Negotiations for a temporary extension of the Commercial Agreement of 1933 with Denmark are in

progress, and will, I hope, be concluded almost immediately.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that the agreement which was to lapse on Saturday is now being continued for a further period without amendment?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; I do not think my hon. Friend would be justified in that assumption.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement on Monday, and let us know what is going to happen after Saturday?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any promise at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the introduction of amending legislation to the Old Age Pension Acts so as to remove the hardship imposed on claimants for old age and blind persons pensions by taking 5 per cent. of the capital value on £375, after excluding the first £25, and 10 per cent. of the capital value in excess of the first £400, having regard to the experience of old age pension committees that the amount received by the claimants is under 5 per cent.?

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919, as regards calculation of the means of claimants for old age and blind persons' pensions under Section 4 of the Act, in view of the fact that whereas under the Act the yearly value of capital value of property is taken, after excluding the first £25, as 5 per cent. in respect of the next £375, and as 10 per cent. in respect of all capital value in excess of the first £400, in the majority of cases coming up for consideration the amount actually received by claimants and pensioners is under 5 per cent. owing to the present cheapness of money, e.g. the present rate of interest on national savings certificates, which rate was recently reduced by the Government?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would refer the hon. Members to the


answer given on 12th December last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Brigadier-General Makins).

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the inadequacy of the old age pension of 10s. per week, and in view of the experience of public assistance committees in having to supplement the pension, he will consider introducing amending legislation to provide a pension at a higher weekly rate?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir. The facts do not support the assumptions in the question. The number of contributory and old age pensioners over 65 who are in receipt of relief is less than 10 per cent. of the total number of such pensioners.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Do I understand that the reason for that figure is that these pensioners have to go on working? Would not the figure be different if the pension were bigger?

Mr. MORRISON: That is another question; if the hon. Member will put it down, I will give him an answer.

Mr. JENKINS: Does the Financial Secretary regard 10s. as an adequate pension?

Mr. LECKIE: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the approximate annual cost of pensions if granted to the wives of men receiving contributory pensions at the age of 65 where the wife is not yet 65 but was married to the pensioner before the passing of the Contributory Pensions Act?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: As regards the cost of granting pensions generally to the wives of contributory pensioners in cases where the wife has not attained the age of 65, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 19th March last to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). There are, I fear, no data available from which the cost could be calculated of an extension of pensions restricted to cases where the wife was married to the pensioner before 1925.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (PRODUCTION).

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any special action

is being taken by his Department at the present time to increase agricultural productivity?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): The agricultural policy of the Government as a whole is directed towards increased productivity, and my right hon. Friend is not clear as to what special action the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. DAY: Is anything being done to increase the number of acres cultivated?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the Parliamentary Secretary think it will materially increase production, if the farmers nave huge staffs of officials loaded on to them as a result of all the boards that have been set up?

Mr. GALLACHER: Will not the hon. Gentleman persuade the Government to relieve the farmers of tithe payments, and thus encourage agriculture?

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON SPINNING INDUSTRY (SPINDLES BOARD).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention, has been drawn to the fact that the Cotton Spindles Board have advertised for a chartered or incorporated accountant at a salary of £400 per annum; and whether he has satisfied himself that a first-rate accountant can be obtained for this salary?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 11 of the Schedule to the Cotton Spinning Industry Act, 1936, under which the Spindles Board are authorised to employ such officers as they think fit. The decision as to the qualifications of candidates for appointment rests, therefore, with the Spindles Board, and not with the Board of Trade.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that £400 a year is an adequate assessment of the importance of this post?

HON. MEMBERS: You get it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will


reconsider the question of the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the situation in Palestine in view of the continued disorders, and will make it clear that nothing will deter the British Government from maintaining order resolutely and carrying out consistently and impartially the terms of the mandate, and that licences for the immigration of Jews will not be suspended?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Marquess of Hartington): I have been asked to reply. I would ask the hon. Member to await my right hon. Friend's statement on these matters in the Debate on Palestine to-morrow.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Noble Lord's right hon. Friend make it clear that there will be no surrender to threats of violence on this occasion, at any rate?

Mr. CARY: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will obtain a report from the High Commissioner of Palestine as to whether the photostatic copies of the Arab-Jewish treaty of friendship, signed in London on 3rd January, 1919, in circulation in Palestine, are true and exact copies of the treaty in possession of His Majesty's Government

Marquess of HARTINGTON: It is assumed that my hon. Friend refers to an agreement signed by the Emir Feisal (as he then was) and Dr. Weizmann, of which the original has recently been stated by Dr. Weizmann to be in his possession. The High Commissioner for Palestine would not be in a position to confirm the authenticity of any alleged photostatic copies which may be in circulation in Palestine.

Mr. CARY: Would there be no means of putting a check on what may have a tendency to become an extremely dangerous form of propaganda?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: It is very difficult to check the circulation of forged documents.

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet any evidence to show whether the disturbances and bloodshed in Palestine are financially aided in any way by contributions from sources outside Pales-

tine; and, if so, what is the nature of these sources?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: My right hon. Friend thinks that there is little doubt that before and during the early stages of the disturbances money from outside sources, which are very difficult to trace, was distributed to strikers and others in Palestine, but he has received no definite evidence from the High Commissioner as to the exact sources.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the High Commissioner any evidence that part of this money came from Rome?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I have stated in my answer that we have received no definite evidence as to the exact source.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Apart from definite evidence, has the Noble Lord any reason to believe that part of that money came from Rome?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Did any of it come from Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING, GLASGOW.

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of applications for houses on the list at 1st June of the Glasgow Corporation housing department?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am informed that there were about 60,000 applications on the list at 1st June.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is that in addition to the number in connection with the prevention of overcrowding?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I should require notice of that question.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in order that Scottish Members of Parliament may be made aware of the plans for air raid precautions now being discussed with local authorities, he will supply Members with copies of the relevant documents now in circulation and any other information at present available?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the documents relating to air raid precautions in Scotland, which have been published by His Majesty's Stationery Office and which can be obtained by Members through the Vote Office. Further memoranda and handbooks dealing with other aspects of air raid precautions schemes are in course of preparation.

Following is the list:

1. Scottish Office Circular No. 3026 dated 9th July, 1935:

Precautionary measures for safeguarding the civilian population.

2. Air Raid Precautions Handbook No. 2:

Anti-Gas Casualties and First Aid for Air Raid Casualties.

3. Air Raid Precautions Memorandum No. 1:

Treatment of Casualties and Decontamination of Personnel.

4. Air Raid Precautions Memorandum No. 2:

Rescue Parties and Clearance of Debris.

5. Scottish Office Circular No. 3108 dated 5th March, 1936, regarding training of members of public services at Civilian Anti-Gas School.

TRADE EXHIBITIONS (SPECIAL AREAS FUND).

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Scottish National Development Council, in pursuance of its policy to expand the sales of Scottish goods in all parts of the world, has arranged for Scottish displays at the forthcoming exhibitions at Johannesburg and Toronto; that the cost of these displays, which will include goods from the Special Areas in Scotland, will be considerable; and whether it is intended to make a grant out of the Special Areas Fund for this purpose?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the rest of the question, I am advised that the Special Areas Act does not authorise the assistance of any measures outside Scotland, England and Wales.

Mr. STEWART: In view of the fact that one of the principal duties of the Special Commissioner is to expand the sale of Scottish goods throughout the world, should not power be given him to make such a grant?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It is not within his powers to spend money outside the countries I mentioned.

Mr. STEWART: Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to obtain powers for the commission to do this most important work?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot give any such undertaking without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL PACKETS (LABELS).

Mr. McGOVERN: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has now considered the letter, to which his attention has been drawn, with gummed labels placed on the back of it which was conveyed from Durham to Glasgow, with offensive printed matter concerning Jews; and whether he can take steps to prevent letters of that kind being carried and have inquiry made with a view to prosecuting any person putting such offensive matter on letters?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): I am advised that the labels cannot be regarded as coming within the terms of Section 16 of the Post Office Act, 1908, and that my right hon. Friend would not be justified in stopping the letters which bear them.

Mr. McGOVERN: Has not the Post Office power to blank out such offensive matter?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: Our legal advisers inform us that there is no case to go to the courts in this instance. Personally I do not regard the taste of the person who put the labels on as being first-class.

Mr. McGOVERN: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Minister the desire to have labels of this type blanked out?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: Certainly I will convey any request from the hon. Member.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will my hon. Friend also consult his legal advisers as to how it is possible for the Post Office to return perfectly legal 10s. orders?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA.

PROTECTORATES.

Mr. EMMOTT: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the recent grant made to the administration of Bechunanaland by the Union Government of South Africa was by way of loan or of a grant in aid; whether any conditions were attached to the grant; and whether, if a loan, the liability for repayment is upon the administration of Bechuanaland or upon the home Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcom MacDonald): The intention was that the assistance offered by the Union Government should take the form of an unconditional free grant.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what amount of money has been advanced by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom by way of loan or other wise to the South African Protectorates of Bechuanaland, Swaziland, and Basutoland in the last 10 years?

Mr. MacDONALD: The total assistance granted by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to these territories during the period in question is £683,925, of which £82,925 represents grants or loans from the Colonial Development Fund.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Bearing in mind a previous answer, that grants from South Africa to the Protectorates would enable works to be undertaken which would not otherwise be undertaken, why could not a small grant of that kind be added to our grant so that we should no longer be under an obligation to South Africa?

Mr. CARTLAND: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the recent grant of money made by the Government of South Africa to wards the cost of the administration or development of the South African Protectorates will in any way limit the freedom of His Majesty's Government in the

United Kingdom to decide the question of the future administration of these territories?

Mr. MacDONALD: As I stated in reply to questions on 28th April, the assistance which has been offered by His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa towards the cost of certain development schemes in the High Commission Territories does not alter the pledges which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have given concerning the question of the transfer of the territories.

Captain CAZALET: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report of General Hertzog's speech, and is it correct or not?

Mr. MacDONALD: I could not say whether the report that appeared in this country is correct or not, but I can say that the policy of the Government in the matter has not altered.

Captain CAZALET: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out what General Hertzog's exact statement was?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am certainly quite ready to find out.

NATIVE FRANCHISE.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom still regard legislation affecting the native franchise in South Africa as a matter on which they are prepared to exercise the power of disallowance belonging to the Crown?

Mr. MacDONALD: No, Sir. The power of disallowance no longer exists in relation to legislation of the Parliament of the Union of South Africa.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Does not this justify the Government in being particularly careful before any promise to transfer South African Protectorates is made?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SHOT FIRING.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that His Majesty's inspectors of mines for Yorkshire have reported that deputies are firing over 100 shots in a double shift of 16 hours; and what he intends to do in these cases?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): No such case has been reported by His Majesty's inspectors. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Do not the inspectors report from the shot books which are kept in the coalpit at the bottom? If they do, it is there in the pit. I know it.

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is not the question that was put. The question was whether they reported, and the answer is, No. If the hon. Member has any information which leads him to believe that his statement is well-founded, will he let me have it?

BEDWAS COLLIERY, MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the recent appointment of a workmen's inspector was made by the men employed at the Bedwas colliery, Monmouthshire, or by the employers; and in what manner was the appointment made?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I understand that the appointment was made by the workmen employed; but the short notice given has not enabled me to obtain full information. I observe that the hon. Member hs put down further questions relating to this colliery for answer on Tuesday next, and I hope then to be in in a position to give fuller particulars.

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give the number of inspections made by the workmen employed at the Bedwas colliery, Monmouthshire, during the years 1934 and 1935, respectively?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The number of such inspections was 31 during 1934, and 13 during 1935.

Mr. DAGGAR: asked the Secretary for Mines how much of the amount of money required to defray the cost of the workmen's examination of the Bedwas colliery, Monmouthshire, during 1935 was deducted from the wages of the workmen; and whether such deduction is a condition of employment at this colliery?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I understand that certain sums are deducted from the wages of the workmen in question by virtue of an agreement between the Wales Miners' Industrial Union and

Benefit Society and the colliery company, and I am informed that the amount deducted in respect of workmen's examiners is one half-penny per week. As regards the second part of the question, I have no information.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the Prime Minister state the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday,—Supply, Committee (10th allotted day). The Vote for the Unemployment Assistance Board will be considered.
Tuesday,—Supply Committee (11th allotted day), Foreign Office Vote.
Wedneday,—Motion to approve the Central (Coal Mines) Scheme (Amendment) Order, 1936.
Thursday,—Report and Third Reading of the Air Navigation Bill, and Motion to approve the Cattle Industry (Extension of Period) Order, 1936.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. ATTLEE: With regard to Thursday's business, there are a large number of matters outstanding on Report of the Air Navigation Bill on which Ministers have agreed to satisfy Members, and the length of time that it may take must depend on how far that is done. To have the Report and Third Reading and the Cattle Industry Order will mean a very late Sitting. Is there any reason why the Third Reading should not be taken on another day?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have given very careful consideration to this, and it seems to us a not unreasonable request to make that these Orders should be taken. There has been so much discussion and debate on the Bill that possibly the right hon. Gentleman's fears may be a little exaggerated. I would rather wait and see before I give a more definite answer.

Mr. ATTLEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the habit now of always putting down the Third Reading on the same day as the Report stage? There may be matters of considerable controversy though no Amendments are


made on the Report, and it is really nullifying the Third Reading stage altogether.

The PRIME MINISTER: The custom of the House in matters of debate varies over terms of years, and there has undoubtedly been a tendency in recent years to have a much shorter debate than used to be customary on the Third Reading. This practice has become more general with both parties during the past five or ten years.

Mr. ATTLEE: May we take it that the House will not be asked to sit very late that night and that, if business is not got through, it will not be extended into the small hours?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should certainly hope not, but I would remind the House that some of us may be beginning to hope that we are getting into the last few weeks of what has been a very heavy and protracted Session, and we all of us want to finish as soon as we can.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Are we to understand that the Debate on Tuesday will be a continuation and development of the discussion that is begun to-day, because the three and a-half hours that we have are obviously insufficient for the general body of Members to take part in it?

The PRIME MINISTER: Whether the Debate on the Foreign Office Vote will take place on a Motion or not I have as yet no knowledge. But it will be the Foreign Office Vote—there is no question about that.

Mr. STEPHEN: Arising out of the business announced for Monday does the Prime Minister mean that we are to have the new Regulations, and, if not, does he think it advisable to take the Vote before we have the new Regulations? Surely, we should have the new Regulations before we take the Vote.

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member is aware that it is not I who chooses the Debate on Supply days. This particular Debate has been asked for by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in Tuesday's Debate, we may have a discussion of the question which I raised at Question Time, and which to-day I personally do not want

to raise, in view of the particular discussion that is to take place?

The PRIME MINISTER: As to what is in order, it is not my duty to pronounce, but anything which is in order on Supply can be raised.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will it be possible on the second Debate on Foreign Affairs for other hon. Members except Front Bench Members or former Cabinet Ministers to be able to speak?

The PRIME MINISTER: That, of course, is the task of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I should be delighted if it were so.

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (COWES) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KEYHAVEN) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARYPORT) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (PAIGNTON) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (WHITLEY BAY) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

GRIMSBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

FOUNDLING HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

FISHGUARD AND GOODWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

TITHE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[8TH ALLOTFED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1936.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £117,736, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—[NOTE: £62,000 has been voted on account.]

3.53 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I must make it clear at the outset that the Government welcome this Debate. They welcome it as affording us an opportunity to make plain the attitude of His Majesty's Government to a number of problems which at present confront the League of Nations, and upon some of which the League will have to take decisions towards the close of this month. In a later part of my speech I wish to deal with other international problems which confront us—problems of no less importance than those which will be discussed at Geneva at the end of the month. But I would like to begin by attempting to put the statement of the Government's policy in respect to the future of sanctions in its true perspective.
Ever since the Italo-Abyssinian dispute began, until now, the Government have taken their full part in collective action. About that there can be no dispute. Certainly it may be argued that collective action should have been more thorough or more complete, but nobody can deny that in the action which has been taken His Majesty's Government have played their full part. We have no intention of departing from that principle now. On the contrary, we shall continue that practice, and collective action remains our aim. In consequence we shall continue to take our full share in any decision

which the League of Nations in its Assembly at the end of this month may decide to take. We are not the League; we are a member of the League. We shall act fully and loyally in line with any action which the Assembly of 50 nations may decide upon. It would be, I suggest to the Committee, open to the Government to say that, and to say no more until we get to Geneva. [Interruption.] It would be open. It would be the very collective action, in one aspect, of which hon. Members speak. It is impossible to have it both ways. You cannot both complain that we must take our full part in collective action and also complain that we do not state our views in advance. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Chancellor of the Exchequer."] I say that it would be possible for His Majesty's Government to pursue that course, but in our view, at what is clearly a period of difficulty in the League's history, that would not be a very heroic course nor one, I believe, which either this House or the country would wish us to take. There is a responsibility.

Mr. GALLACHER: A responsibility in running away.

Mr. EDEN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me make my observations. The Government have a responsibility to the League—a responsibility not only for compliance, but also for guidance. Many times in this dispute the Government have given the lead, many times, and hon. Gentlemen opposite will find not one time when anybody else has given it; many times we have given the lead. We gave it in January of last year when it was our insistence which brought this dispute within the jurisdiction and the action of the Council itself. It was our action and our efforts in the intervening months that resulted in the Council in May handling this dispute, which resulted in the passage of a resolution which maintained the right of the Council, hitherto challenged by Italy, to follow the course of the dispute, and which secured the acceptance then, in May, of the principle and of the machinery of conciliation. Again, it was on the initiative of the British Government that the Council met in July when it otherwise would not have met till September. It was at our instance, jointly with the French Government, that a three-Power conference was called in Paris in August last year. It is


quite true that the Paris Conference was abortive, but no one who at that time or now looked at its proceedings would maintain that our own Government did not do the utmost they could to bring about its success. Again, in September my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty took the lead at Geneva in a speech which met with approval from all sections of opinion in this country; and in October, when it came to the actual organisation of sanctions—[Interruption.]—the hon. Member's cheap gibes are not appropriate to the discussion—when it came in October to the organisation and application of the collective action which 50 nations of the League had decided for the first time in history that they would take, again it was this Government which took the lead, both in proposing and in organising the work of those Committees.
Those are facts which cannot be challenged, which must be admitted by anyone who chooses with any attempt at impartiality to review the events of the past few months. Now that the League is perplexed it is the view of the Government that it is its duty to take the lead again. No doubt it would be easy, quite easy for us not to do so, and to leave it to someone else and to follow after someone else's lead, but I do not believe that that is the right attitude for this country to take. I am quite convinced that so far from this lead, which we are going to take, embarrassing others, it will be welcomed in many quarters. [HON. MEMBERS: "In Rome."] What, in the view of the Government, should the League do? Whatever view we take of the course of action which the League should follow, there is one fact upon which we must all be agreed. We have to admit that the purpose for which sanctions were imposed has not been realised. It is not necessary to give a detailed account of the reasons for that fact; they are many. No doubt there were serious miscalculations. One of them was a miscalculation by military opinion in most countries that the conflict would last very much longer than it has in fact done, and that in consequence the sanctions which everyone knew could not operate at once, would produce their effect and assist thereby to obtain a settlement. In any event, I ask the Committee to remember that there was a very good reason for the

League to enforce the sanctions, the particular ones they chose, because with an incomplete membership they were the only ones they could impose and which by their own action alone they could hope to see effective. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oil."] Oil could not be made effective by League action alone.

Mr. PALING: What did America say? [Interruption.]

HON. MEMBERS: Order.

Mr. GALLACHER: This is not a Sunday School.

Mr. EDEN: The fact has to be faced that sanctions did not realise the purpose for which they were imposed. The Italian military campaign succeeded. The capital and the most important part of Abyssinia are in Italian military occupation, and so far as I am aware no Abyssinian Government survives in any part of the Emperor's territory. That is a situation which has got to be faced. It is a situation which nothing but military action from without, from outside the country, can possibly reverse. Is there any country prepared to take such military action? Or is there any section of opinion in this country prepared to take such military action?

Mr. McGOVERN: The Labour party.

Mr. EDEN: Those are the hard facts of the situation, and I submit that no Member of this Committee can escape from facing them if he is willing to appreciate the full problem with which the Government are to-day confronted. I suggest that those facts, unwelcome though they are, do bring us to one definite conclusion—that if the League is to attain the objective for which it originally set out, then it has to be ready to take measures of an altogether different character from those applied hitherto. To use plain language, it is plain that if the League means to enforce in Abyssinia a peace which the League can rightly approve, then the League must take action of a kind which must inevitably lead to war in the Mediterranean. No man can say that such a war would be confined to the Mediterranean. I have no reason to think that the League favours such departure or such action. I have no reason to believe that this country, upon whom the greatest burden of such a war must fall, desires it either.
Though the League has not availed to prevent the successful accomplishment of a violation of the Covenant, the Government do not regret, and I do not believe our fellow-members of the League regret, having made the attempt. We have in common applied all those economic and financial measures upon which general agreement could be obtained, in the hope that action would be effective. We ourselves proposed virtually all the most important. These are the motives with which we did so, and in that respect we have nothing to apologise for and nothing to retract. There is no question—I must emphasise it—in our view, of the judgment passed by the League last autumn on the act of aggression being either modified or reversed.
Now I come to the steps to be taken at the next meeting of the League. The League, the Assembly of 50 nations there, will then have to review the whole situation of which this question of sanctions forms only a part. We cannot tell what will be the views of the various Governments represented there, but His Majesty's Government, after mature consideration, on advice which I as Foreign Secretary thought it my duty to give them, have come to the conclusion that there is no longer any utility in continuing these measures as a means of pressure upon Italy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame," "Resign," "Sabotage "]—If the Committee will bear with me I will give them the reasons which have brought us to take this decision. It cannot be expected by anyone that the continuance of existing sanctions will restore in Abyssinia the position which has been destroyed; nobody expects that. That position can be restored only by military action. So far as I am aware no other Government, certainly not this Government, is prepared to take such military action.
In my view sanctions can be maintained only for some clearly defined and specific purpose. The only such purpose conceivable is the restoration in Abyssinia of the position which has been destroyed. Since that restoration cannot be effected except by military action, I suggest that that purpose does not in fact exist, and to maintain sanctions without any clearly defined purpose—which many people, I know, would wish

to do—would have only this result: It would result in the crumbling of the sanctions front, so that in a few weeks' time the League would be confronted with a state of affairs still more derogatory than that which we have to face to-day. If further maintenance of sanctions would serve no useful purpose there is a danger that to attempt them would only bring disorder into what are at present the well-ordered ranks of the League countries imposing sanctions—[Laughter]. Hon. Members may find that amusing, but I do not believe it is in the interest of the League itself that the sanctions front should crumble into confusion. I think it is right that the League should admit that sanctions have not realised their purpose and should face that fact.
Those are the considerations which the Government have had in mind in coming to their decision. But I must repeat that the decision which is to be taken is a League decision, and the Government will, of course, concur in whatever is the view of the Assembly as a whole. None the less we have thought it our duty in advance to state our position before we go there. There is another aspect of the events of the last few months to which I wish the Committee would allow me to refer. [Interruption.]

4.15 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: On a point of Order. May I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that some of the Labour benches are occupied by Conservative Members, and while no protest was made as long as those Members remained silent, when they begin to interrupt and falsely create the impression that those interruptions are coming from Labour Members, we protest.

The CHAIRMAN: In a case of this kind, when feeling sometimes runs rather high, it is, I think, the business of the Chair to interfere as little as is necessary in order to preserve the decencies of Debate. I have not up to the present thought it necessary to interfere, although there have been times when the interruption, if I may put it so, of the Minister occupying the Floor of the House has made things a little difficult for him. I have not attempted to draw any particular view as to the party of any Member responsible for that interruption, and I do not wish to do so. I do not think that at the present time any question of


order arises as to where hon. Members are sitting. While it is perfectly true that under normal conditions Members of different parties or groups sit in particular places, there is no rule of the House against any Member sitting where he can find a seat. Therefore, I think that in the circumstances to raise a point of Order on this question is quite unnecessary. I hope that a little forbearance all round will enable the Committee to do what I am sure is the intention, and one of the objects of the Debate namely to hear the statement from the Government of their policy.

Mr. ATTLEE: As you have said, we are all desirous that this important Debate should be conducted in the best possible way and, as you said, it is difficult sometimes when feeling runs high. But I put it to you that for that purpose it has been Mr. Speaker's rule to consult with the leaders of different parties in the House as to where they should sit. That has been done in this Parliament. These seats have been assigned to the Labour party, and for other Members to insert themselves in those seats and to interrupt Debate so as to give an impression either that those interruptions come from this side or that there is dissension in our party, is something that is not calculated to give a reasonable chance to the right hon. Gentleman who is speaking or to preserve that decency of Debate which we desire. I suggest that that is entirely contrary to the wishes of the House, and that those hon. Members should withdraw to the part of the House to which they belong.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: On a point of Order. As one of the Members who is sitting in a seat not usually occupied by those of my political views, I should like to give a word of explanation to the House. When certain interruptions were made more loudly than usual from these benches when the right hon. Gentleman was addressing the House, I ventured, perhaps usurping your function, to say, "Order, order." It was then that I noticed that the demonstration against hon. Members sitting on these benches began. If it should be your Ruling that I should withdraw from this seat, I am willing to do so.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: Further to that point of Order. May I draw your atten-

tion to the fact that Labour Members are standing under the Gallery on this side in numbers equal to those who are taking their seats?

The CHAIRMAN: When the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition rises to put anything to me in regard to a point of Order it is only right that I should take note of it. If the Committee will permit me to do so, I wish to do it in this way. I have no power, nor has any occupant of this Chair or the Speaker's Chair any power to order any Member either to sit or not to sit in any particular place. There are not only the customs to which I have referred, but there is a custom, which we may take to be an absolute rule, in regard to Members reserving seats. Outside that, I have certainly no right whatever to interfere with Members as to where they sit. I think hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will be acting to the common advantage of the whole Committee if they do not shorten the already short time available for this Debate by any unnecessary points of Order or any unnecessary interruptions.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. EDEN: There is another aspect of the events of the last few months to which I wish at this stage to draw the attention of the Members of the Committee, and in respect of which I wish to make a declaration on behalf of the Government. The Members of the Committee will perhaps recall the fact that last December exchanges of view took place between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of certain Mediterranean Powers, as a result of which certain reciprocal assurances were exchanged under paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Covenant. Papers were laid at the time. In brief, the effect of the assurances we gave was that we assured certain Mediterranean countries that we would come to their aid in the event of their being attacked for action which they were taking under Article 16. It is the view of the Government that this assurance given by this country should not end with the raising of sanctions but should continue to cover the period of uncertainty which must necessarily follow any termination of action under Article 16. Therefore, should the Assembly at the end of the month decide to raise sanctions, His Majesty's Government intend, with a view


to making their contribution to establishing confidence in the regions concerned, to state at Geneva that such are their views.
I need hardly add that the Government regard any such eventuality as those assurances covered not only as hypothetical but as improbable. Moreover, obviously—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite would put themselves in the position of the countries concerned they would not interrupt me. Moreover, obviously, these assurances would be intended to operate only so long as in the opinion of the Government they remain appropriate to the circumstances. Within these limits we think it right that these assurances should continue, and we are prepared to state that fact at Geneva. Moreover, in the light of the experience of recent months the Government have determined that it is necessary that we should maintain permanently in the Mediterranean a defensive position stronger than that which existed before this dispute began. Arrangements will be made to carry out that declaration.
Important as these matters are, there is another problem the significance of which in my view dominates everything else at this time—the future of the League itself. A further reason which actuated me and actuated the Government in the decision that I have just announced was the conviction that the future of the League needs to be earnestly and urgently considered by all its members. We believe that such consideration can only be given when the preoccupations and problems in connection with the imposition of sanctions have been liquidated. I must make it plain that the Government are determined that the League should go on. [HON. MEMEERS: "Where? Which way?"] In our view, the course which we are pursuing is much more calculated to secure that result than the gibes of hon. Members opposite. I was going to say "the course of hon. Members opposite," but they never tell us what it is. In our view, the fact that the League has tried and failed in this instance is not a reason for making us wish that the attempt had not been made, but it is a reason for making us determine to seek so to organise the League that it may achieve the best chance of success hereafter. [Interruption.] I beg to think that my

remarks have some importance. If the League is to have its best chance of success then it must be organised on a basis which takes account of the lessons of the last few months. Those lessons have to be analysed, and the instruction which they give has to be embodied in the future practice of the League.
The Government do not anticipate that at the Session of the Assembly at the end of this month the other nations will be willing or ready to deal with that vast problem of the future of the League. We think probably it would be wiser to leave dealing with that problem until the normal Assembly in September. But in the meanwhile each Government should be engaged, must be engaged, on considering the shortcomings, the weaknesses and even the dangers which have been revealed by the experience of the last few months. All minds must be turned actively to that task. His Majesty's Government have already begun upon it. We are already actively engaged upon it, and we shall keep in close touch with the Dominions in respect of this question. Our intention is to make the most constructive and effective contribution in our power at the Assembly which takes place in September.
The question is, can the world succeed in reorganising itself on a peace basis? I am convinced, despite the events of the last few months that it can, if it will. I am convinced that it remains true that a universal League of Nations of substantially disarmed States, in a world made safe for democracy—that is what the Covenant contemplated—can effectively and without doubt maintain peace, but, unhappily as I believe for mankind, such a League has never in fact existed, nor in present conditions can it readily be seen how such a League can be made. I say that to the Committee in order that they may appreciate that we are to-day confronted with problems totally different in character, unwelcome though those differences may be, from the problems which confronted the original authors of the Covenant. We have to comprise within one organisation the willing collaboration of governments of totally divergent character. That gives some indication of the nature of the problem, but unless we do face it we cannot expect the League in the future effectively to meet these problems. At least I will give the Committee this definite assurance, that


the Government will strive to restore to the League its full authority, after this set-back which we admit, and to that end we propose to devote ourselves.
I should like to turn to another and no less important aspect of the international situation which now confronts us, and I want to deal, if the Committee will allow me, with the negotiations which the Government have sought to set on foot ever since the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in March. Successive Governments in this country have long stood for a, policy based on a desire to establish good relations between Germany and the countries which were her enemies in the War. We have sought to do that on a basis of German equality and independence and the equality and independence of others, and on a basis of respect for engagements undertaken. The collaboration of Germany is indispensable to the peace of Europe, and we have asked, as successive British Governments have asked, nothing better than to work with Germany to that end. That is the purpose that underlay the Treaty of Locarno negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). It was the purpose in the mind of successive British Governments when they negotiated the reparation arrangements, culminating in their disappearance at Lausanne altogether. It formed part of the negotiations of the Disarmament Conference, and after the breakdown of that conference in the spring of 1934 the Government of this country did not relax their efforts. The Committee has only to read the Blue Book which we published last April—I think it is of interest to read that Blue Book—to appreciate the whole course which these negotiations have followed.
There are only one or two of these most important matters to which I desire to refer. In February of last year the joint Anglo-French Declaration was agreed upon in London to try to secure a general settlement for the pacification of Europe. That was a comprehensive settlement, comprising proposed agreements between Germany and a number of European States, mutual air pact agreements, and agreements which should replace the armament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. Soon after that meeting in March Germany enacted conscription by declaration, and the task of His Majesty's

Government was thereby complicated, but we persevered throughout last year in efforts, constantly renewed, to secure an air pact, arrangements in Eastern Europe, and an agreed limitation of certain forms of armaments. For various reasons the German Government felt obliged to postpone their response to our efforts.
That was the situation which I found at the end of the year when I came to the Foreign Office. I felt that I must make plain at once how earnest was my desire to enter into friendly discussions with the German Government in order to secure working arrangements in which that country could participate. Accordingly I instructed our Ambassador in Berlin to tell Herr Hitler that I shared the view he had expressed as to the importance of close collaboration and understanding between, Great Britain, France and Germany, and I expressed the hope that the two Governments would keep that object in view despite the fact that Germany was unwilling at that moment to open discussions.
At intervals in January and February we sought to make progress with these negotiations and also with an Air Pact, but the next development was on 7th March, when the German Ambassador came to the Foreign Office and informed me that German troops had entered the demilitarised zone that morning. I do not want this afternoon to repeat the earlier observations I had to make on that matter. Suffice it to say, and the whole Committee knows it, that the suddenness of that action on the part of the German Government aroused the utmost anxiety and disquiet in Belgium and in France, and for other reasons among countries in a great part of Europe. In those circumstances the policy of the Government was to seek to calm anxieties and thus promote a situation in which considered reflection and careful negotiations might be possible.
Ever since the events of 7th March we have sought to rebuild. We did not suppose, of course, that the action of the German Government could be revoked, and we did not ask for it, but, we did hope from the German Government some contribution which would show, as they affirmed themselves, that their action was only of symbolic significance. We asked the German Government to


make spontaneously a contribution towards the restoration of confidence. The German Government unhappily felt unable to do so. So far as we are concerned we have done everything we could to restore confidence and allay apprehensions. That is why we reaffirmed on the 19th March our obligations and our guarantees under the Locarno Treaty. That is why, as tangible evidence, we agreed to Staff conversations to arrange the technical conditions in which our obligations could be carried out in case of unprovoked aggression. Moreover, we made it plain at once that we were ready to negotiate with Germany, France and Belgium, new nonaggression and security arrangements for Western Europe.
But it was also clear, in view of the German occupation of the zone, that Europe at large would wish to know what Germany's intentions were towards the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and all the more naturally in the light of the proposals which the German Chancellor had himself announced. Moreover, it was important for us and for Europe to be assured that Germany now felt that a point had been reached at which she could signify that she recognised and intended to respect the existing territorial and political status of Europe except of course' as it might subsequently be modified by free negotiations and agreements. A frank and a reassuring response to that question I am sure would be the signal for a return of confidence to Europe. I believe that nothing less, if I may say so, than a European settlement and appeasement should be our aim. If a reassurance can be given on this point then there are elements in the present situation which would enable us to attempt to conclude a permanent settlement in Europe based on the disappearance of the demilitarised zone. That was the primary purpose of the communication which the British Ambassador made to the German Government on the 6th May last. The inquiries thus put to the German Government were in our view very necessary and legitimate on our part. They were made as soon as possible after we had elucidated the position at Geneva in a meeting with the other Powers signatory to the Locarno Treaty.

For that reason the Government felt justified in looking for an early reply from the German Government, a reply which we trust will enable progress to be made with the negotiations which if is our first object to see successfully realised.
In the remarks which I have addressed to the Committee this afternoon I have confined myself to two subjects but there are many other problems. Although there are many other problems no one in the Committee will deny that it is these two problems, the Italo-Abyssinian dispute and the negotiations with Germany, which dominate the present situation. Neither of them is of our own making but we cannot ignore either. There seems to me to be a tendency in some quarters to close the eye to one and let the other occupy the whole field. The Government with their responsibilities cannot afford to do that. I recognise, no one better, that there are many people in this country who have given the Government strong support in the Italo-Abyssinian dispute and, if I may say so, who have given me personally strong support. I can understand only too well their keen disappointment at present events. As a convinced believer in the League, I share that disappointment, but I feel I am entitled to ask hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to look at this problem as a whole.
It is in that perspective that the practical question of what to do about sanctions has to be decided. If we cling to a course after the objective has become unattainable, we may lose a greater end for which we are working, the greater end being in anxious days to keep peace. To that end we have to bend all our energies. If it means admitting failure in one instance, that has got to be faced. This is a situation in which there is no ideal way out. If there were, there would be no difference between us in any part of the Committee or in the country. The aim upon which we are all united is that peace, not chaos and catastrophe, shall rule. Peace is the one essential need of the world. It is because I believe profoundly that the policy I have outlined to this Committee this afternoon is the one which, in the present anxious, difficult and critical situation, is most likely to preserve peace that I submit it with a


deep conviction and with a full sense of responsibility to this Committee.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I think hon. Members on all sides of the Committee are impressed by the importance and seriousness of this Debate, and in what I have to say I shall try to put faithfully the views of my party, and the views, I believe, of a very large number of British citizens who are outside my party. I am bound to say at the very outset that no more deplorable speech has ever fallen from the lips of a British Minister. During the whole of the speech there was not a single word of sympathy for a broken nation and not a word in condemnation of a Power which has deliberately organised the use of poison gas in spite of its treaty obligations. It was a speech which means truckling to a dictator. Millions of people in our land will hear with shame and consternation the statment that has been made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
The National Government's disastrous foreign policy over five years has been reviewed in the House on more occasions than one. It is a sorry story. I do not propose to go back further than the last nine months, but to confront the Government with the noble sentiments which it issued and uttered a few months ago compared with the despicable attitude which it is taking now on precisely the same question. The speech of the then Foreign Secretary at Geneva last September gave new hope to this country and to supporters of the League of Nations everywhere. It was felt that after their unfortunate adventures in the realm of foreign politics the Government had at last come down to the basis of reality and were prepared to enable the Foreign Secretary to make a speech which stands out as one of the greatest speeches that has been made since the War. We had thought that that was the turning of a new page. That speech has been reechoed by other Ministers, and I think we ought to be grateful to the "News Chronicle" for bringing these speeches to our notice during the last few days. The Chancellor of the Exchequer only a month later said:
If the League were to abdicate its functions under the Covenant every weak nation would first begin to arm, then to seek alliances with its strongest neighbour, and

before long the peace of Europe would be at the mercy of the biggest and strongest Powers in Europe.
He went on to say:
The choice before us is whether we shall make a last effort at Geneva for peace or security or whether by a cowardly surrender we shall break a promise we have made and hold ourselves up to the shame of our children and their children's children.
The National Government issued, over the signature of its three leaders, an election manifesto to which hon. and right hon. Members were pledged and which was responsible for their holding their seats in the House. The people believed that these words were what the Government really believed, and in consequence the people gave them support. These are the words:
The League of Nations will remain, as heretofore, the keystone of British foreign policy. We shall continue to do all in our power to uphold the Covenant and to maintain and increase the efficiency of the League. In the present unhappy dispute between Italy and Abyssinia there will be no wavering in the policy we have hitherto pursued. We shall endeavour to further any discussions which may offer the hope of a just and fair settlement, provided that it be within the framework of the League and acceptable to the three parties to the dispute—Italy, Abyssinia and the League itself.
It was on the strength of those promises that these people climbed back to power, to commit within nine months the biggest act of political treachery known in the history of this country. While the ears of the people were still ringing with these tones about peace, the Government were preparing their big rearmament programme on an unexampled scale against an undisclosed enemy, and people then began to wonder whether those very fine words were a sincere expression of the National Government's opinion.
Before Christmas, within two months of the General Election, we had the Hoare-Laval proposals. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary did not dwell upon them, but I would remind him that those proposals were destroyed by a torrent of public opinion and indignation which amazed the Government and even amazed the lethargic Prime Minister. The then Foreign Secretary, in a very courageous speech in the House, stuck to his guns and was sacrificed to save the faces of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. It ought to have been a lesson to the Government then that the people of this land stood by the declara-


tion of foreign policy made by the Government at the Election. And it did seem, after the collapse of the Hoare-Laval proposals, that there was some return of sanity on the part of the Members of the National Government. In April, only seven weeks ago—this sudden conversion is a most astonishing thing—the Foreign Secretary said at Geneva:
This is a solemn hour. We are faced with a grave decision. Every Government must show its responsibility and clearly state the policy they are prepared to pursue. So far as His Majesty's Government is concerned, we propose to maintain those economic and financial sanctions which have already been put into force. In addition, His Majesty's Government are ready and prepared to consider the imposition of any further economic and financial sanctions that may be considered effective for the settlement of the dispute.
That was in April. A great change has taken place since. There has been another event of some significance. Within a few short months the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was back in high office—was back in the councils of the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty. His absence this afternoon has been noted. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is here."] I withdraw that. Has the First Lord of the Admiralty changed his views since last December? Has he influenced the Government to change their decision I Has he been a silent and impotent member of the Cabinet since his return, or is there some relationship between the return of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the new policy of the Government I say that his return to the Government so soon after his dismissal—his return to a Government which he very nearly destroyed—was an insult to those millions of people in this country who raised their voices and made him go.
To proceed chronologically, we have the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first part of the Foreign Secretary's speech was a record of "His Master's Voice." We have read all this about sanctions in the columns of the morning papers. I only wish the Foreign Secretary had been a little more emphatic, in the second part of his speech, as to whether he subscribes to the views which were the personal reflections of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the 1900 Club dinner, because until that is denied we shall assume that that is the Government's policy. I am referring to the two crucial points of

the Chancellor's speech, the limitation of the powers of the League and the reversion to regional pacts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a person of bubbling exuberance. He is one who has sealed lips. He is not the kind of person to blab, not even in the genial atmosphere of a 1900 Club dinner.
Was this a calculated indiscretion? Was the Chancellor speaking only his own mind? Has he never discussed with his colleagues this so-called failure of the League? Did he take upon his own shoulders to make a tremendous pronouncement of this kind without the knowledge of the Prime Minister and his fellow members of the Cabinet? If so, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be sitting there. If statements of high policy are to be uttered by unauthorised persons, that is the end of Parliamentary Government. Unless we have an emphatic denial that the limitation of the powers of the League and the reversion to regional pacts is not to be the policy of the Government, we have no alternative but to believe that that it what is honestly and sincerely in their minds. The Prime Minister's reply last Thursday, I feel quite sure, disturbed Members on all sides of the House. It was not a spectacle I would wish to see often repeated, to see the Prime Minister so thoroughly uncomfortable and embarrassed at having to defend his friend. The answer was shuffling, it was shifting, it was not the kind of answer we have learned to expect from the right hon. Gentleman, whose reputation for honesty is world-wide.
If we are suspicious, is it surprising? Is it surprising, in view of the shifts and wriggles of the Government, with its mouthing of high principles one day and its mean and despicable actions on another day, that large numbers of people now doubt the sincerity of the Government? It is a serious matter to doubt the sincerity of a Government. Opponents may think it misguided, but sincerity ought to be the soul of all Governments, of whatever political party. Is it surprising that large numbers of people now in all parties and in all walks of life—as some of us know from correspondence which has reached us—are disgusted with and ashamed of this Government? The Government to-day is a very sorry spectacle, the victim of pernicious anaemia. I would not go so far as someone in the "Times" did when he


said that the Government was suffering from paralysis of the insane, but it is anaemic certainly.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues have in our view forfeited the respect of all thinking people. The Prime Minister and his colleagues are in the words of Shelley:
Rulers, who neither see, nor feel, nor know,
But leech-like to their fainting country cling.
Now we have this statement of the Foreign Secretary to-day. We are glad to think that the Prime Minister is going to make his contribution to the Debate and is going to break his long silence on foreign affairs. For six months, during which international affairs have been a matter of general discussion and in everybody's mind in this House, the Prime Minister's lips have been sealed. Are they to be opened to-day? If they are, I would like to ask him two questions.
Will he explain to us how these fine sentiments to which his colleagues have given expression and to which he has himself signed his name in the statement I have read to the Committee, can be reconciled with this new policy of scuttle? How can that policy be reconciled with belief in the integrity of the League and a just settlement of the dispute in Abyssinia? How can it be reconciled with the deplorable speech of the Foreign Secretary? I would like to ask a further and a more serious question. In view of these statements by His Majesty's Ministers and the complete volte face of to-day, can he believe that Britain's word can ever be believed again in the world? I have on more than one occasion criticised the whole of the foreign policy of the National Government. Fiddling whilst Rome was burning was a childish folly compared with the gross incompetence of the National Government's handling of foreign affairs. They have reduced us to a pretty pass.
The Foreign Secretary has made a speech which I believe he will live to regret. I saw a newspaper placard this morning—a newspaper I rarely buy myself—containing four words "Eden to lead retreat." That was a very apt description. The retreat from Moscow was historically less significant than the retreat of the right hon. Gentleman. Who would have thought that this new and

enthusiastic apostle of the League of Nations would have led the retreat from Geneva, because that is what is implied in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. They are now prepared to go to the League and give it a lead. The Foreign Secretary explained how on occasion after occasion the British Government had given a lead to the League of Nations. It is now prepared to give the lead again and the right hon. Gentleman, like a certain Duke of York, having led his troops up the hill is leading them down again.
There is no word as to what the Government mean to propose in order to settle this dispute. The Abyssinian dispute still exists. The only suggestion is that sanctions have proved a failure and that therefore sanctions are to be lifted. That leaves the African situation unsettled. There was to be a settlement within the framework of the League, a fair and just settlement. All we are to have now is a withdrawal of sanctions against the victor. The primary question remains unsettled. Gangsterdom is triumphant and Abyssinia stands as a ghastly monument to the treachery of nations who were sworn to stand by her. No Government in this country, bad as some have been in the past, ever humiliated itself or the people it represented more shamefully and more completely than this Government has done to-day by the proposal to dispense with the one effective weapon in the hands of the League of Nations, the one effective weapon by which the rule of law can be vindicated. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members must realise that if the right hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Committee does not give way, they have no right to interrupt.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Foreign Secretary has told us there were many reasons why sanctions failed. He was not good enough to outline any of them in any detail. The real reason why sanctions may have partially failed is because of the half-hearted attitude of the British Government. I do not believe that war is the only thing left now. I believe myself that the most terrifying power in the world to-day is the power of economic and financial sanctions. I say that, properly applied, they would bring any


nation to its knees however powerful it was. If the Government haul down the flag of sanctions now they will have hauled it down because they have never had the courage of their convictions. We hear about crumbling sanctions. Where then is this noble British lead? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to go to Geneva and say, "Will you, the nations of the League, still honour your obligations?" Why has he not done that before giving them this lead? The Government are leading the League where they want to lead it. It is not that the League has failed, it is not that sanctions have failed—it is that the courage of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends has failed.
I ask the Committee what is the logic of the situation in which we are now. The step which the Government propose is a complete surrender to Fascism and all that Fascism means. It is an admission that successful aggresion—not unsuccessful aggression—is to be condoned. It is an abject capitulation of reason and the rule of law to wanton lawlessness and gangsterdom. It cannot mean anything else. It has given heart to Mussolini, who can stride in his jack-boots across Europe, and a supine British Government will let him do it. I take the matter further. I would like to do the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert) the honour of having his poem, which appeared in the "Times" yesterday, reprinted in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Member was inspired to verse by a telegram in a daily paper which said:
It is hinted that only a reversal of the League verdict that Italy was the aggressor in Abyssinia would really meet the case.
We may have that next Tuesday. Now for the poem:
Let us be realist and face the facts,
For peace, at any price, is more than pacts.
The house is broke; the burglar keeps the cruet;
Why not be wise, and say he didn't do it?
It may be awkward to condone a crime,
But not if it was lawful all the time.
If humble pie be what the nations wish,
Let them have plenty, let them lick the dish,
Singing, 'The meek Italian left his home
To drive the Abyssinian brute from Rome,'
Maybe that mustard on the mountain tops
Was loosed by Englishmen disguised as Wops?

Earl WINTERTON: Are you ready to fight the Wops?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that he has completely sold the pass or means to do so at the earliest opportunity, with regard to sanctions where the Government and the League now stand on Article X.
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
My simple question to the right hon. Gentleman is: What advice is he going to take to the League when he goes back? The Foreign Secretary was studiously vague in what he said about the future of the League. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was much more pointed and I want to say again that the House of Commons is entitled to a clear and unequivocal statement as to what the Government mean by "revising the League." Does it mean seeking, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, a limitation of its powers or does it mean that behind the League, or under the umbrella of the League, we are to revert to regional pacts? A League of Nations which allowed itself to be dominated by the mailed fist of an aggressor is a mockery. It is not a League in which there can be any confidence, but the great lesson to be drawn from the tragic events of the last eight or nine months is not that the League should be emasculated but that the League should be strengthened. The time is ripe, not for limiting but for enlarging the powers of the League in the light of the unfortunate experiences of recent months. Surely all people who have given thought to this question stand for a League of Nations, not crippled, not emasculated, not dominated and terrified by dictatorships, but a League given powers which would enable it to set its face relentlessly against aggression from wherever it may come. [HON MEMBERS: "What powers?"] I have already informed the Committee that I am not under examination. The Government are in the dock and I want to keep them in the dock.
I put it to the Government that this is a very bitter experience for a very


large number of citizens of this country who, during the last year, calmly and deliberately placed their faith in the League and all that the League implies. The peace ballot was not a light-hearted thing and it must be now a very bitter experience to many to find this Government prepared to be the first Government of a great nation in the League to throw a stone at it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The limitation of its powers means the strangling of the League and that appears to be the policy of the Government. The Government are now running away from terrific responsibilities. The very fact that the League has had to face one who flouted its authority, ought to nerve people to stronger action for the maintenance of the League.

HON. MEMBERS: What action?

Mr. GALLAGHER: Oil sanctions!

Mr. GREENWOOD: The only hope of settled peace is a strong League and collective security. There is no other way and for the Government now to consider tampering with the fabric of the League and dropping its effective weapon against an aggressor means that they are shirking their responsibilities. We have this shuffling and cringing retreat on the part of a Government which has always prided itself on consisting of strong men, some of them silent, with sealed lips, but strong nevertheless. It is rather shameful to think of them now turning tail on huge problems which they have had a hand in creating by their own weakness and vacillation. We do not need now to haul down the flag. What we need now, in the light of the dreadful experiences of recent months, is a new and determined approach to peace. I do not believe that we shall get it from the Foreign Secretary. I ask the Government what is their policy for keeping the peace. Is their policy to condone aggression—because aggression grows by success? It it their policy to emasculate the League of Nations? Is it their policy to reduce the League of Nations to the level of a pleasant Sunday afternoon meeting?

Mr. COCKS: To be addressed by the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Is it the Government's policy to rely on partial pacts to

keep the peace? Is it their policy, to use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to "limit the danger zones" and to mark out beforehand your potential enemy? Is that the peace policy of the Government or is it their policy to arm to the teeth in desperation, because they know no other way out? As surely as night follows day, war must follow these suicidal policies. What we are discussing to-day is something of tremendous importance.—[An. HON. MEMBER: "You do not realise it."] Hon. Members opposite do not. The fate of mankind to-day hangs in the balance. There are two ways to tread. Are we going to tread the path along which lie the bodies of hundreds and thousands of our fellow citizens who were killed in the last War, or are we going to scale the heights to a rule of law which means something in the world? That is not the declaration of the Government this afternoon. If the Government treat their most solemn statements, which were made in the atmosphere of the General Election and since, as scraps of paper, they are unworthy of public confidence. Having misled the people of this country, the Government ought to have the courage to go out of office, dishonoured, with all their sins on their shoulders, and to make way for those who are prepared to put their principles to the test, principles by which scores of millions of people in this and other lands now swear to vindicate the rule of law in the world once and for all. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] The establishment of a League of Nations which shall be effective—[HON. MEMBERS: "How? By war?"] I have the most supreme contempt for the stupid and parrot-like interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They will do their own cause no good by them and by treating this question with flippancy.
I am saying that if the Government will not fulfil their heavy and high responsibilities they ought to make way for people who are prepared to stand by what has been said on this and thousands of platforms, not by men of one party, but by men of the party opposite, too, to stand by the League and all that the League means. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Hon. Members can treat this question flippantly, I know. I will repeat the point and perhaps hon. Members


opposite will understand it. There must be no place for this trembling, vacillating, cowardly Government, which is leading people backward instead of forward, and we must have a Government that sincerely believes in the possibility of an effective League of Nations, that is prepared to put that principle to the test—[HON. MEMBERS: "How? By war?"]—and a Government that is prepared to abandon what is the motive in the hearts of many Members opposite, the motive of Imperialism and militarism, which animates people who are prepared to fight for any cause but the League of Nations, and who treat with levity what has been the greatest adventure in the history of mankind, the foundation of the League of Nations. The Government now bring it into contempt, but the League will flourish when these men's names have been forgotten.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I feel that after the powerful speech which we have heard from my right hon. Friend, it is hardly necessary for me, or for anyone else, to restate the case, but I feel a certain sense of personal responsibility, in the circumstances under which this Debate has arisen, to say one word. I was one of those who was primarily responsible, as Prime Minister of this country and as head of the delegation of the British Empire, in committing Britain and her Empire to the League, its Covenant, its obligations, its risks, its sanctions, and I have no hesitation in answering the questions which have been put from the other side of the Committee. Unless it means that, in the ultimate resort, the League will have no authority. I think that it will avert war all the more if this is known. Therefore, I have no hesitation in answering; that challenge leaves me without any difficulty at all. I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very serious occasion. I cannot imagine a more serious Debate than that which we are going through now.
If the policy of the Government is to materialise, if they are going to Geneva to say, "We are beaten, the League has failed, we do not propose any further sanctions, we propose to abandon our position altogether," believe me, there is, an end of the authority of the League of Nations. It is like a Government that is confronted with gunmen, with organi-

sations to defy the law; they make every effort to re-establish law, order and authority, and they say, "We are very sorry, we have got to give it up." Believe me there is nothing but anarchy as an alternative. That is anarchy, and there will be international anarchy the moment it is known and recognised. It is no use saying, as the Foreign Secretary did, that he is going to reconstitute and reform the League. There is not the slightest use. The League is sufficiently loose in its constitution to adapt itself to every contingency. That was the object of it. It is not an elaborate written constitution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is nothing that you need alter in the League of Nations. You can pursue any policy you like under the conditions of the Covenant. What is needed is that, once you have undertaken a line of action, you should stand by it.
The fundamentals are not that you should have a League of Nations which meets there like a debating society, Ministers flying over there delivering great speeches, and coming back feeling that the thing is done. We have had that for years over disarmament. You must have some sort of authority there and the nations must stand by it. Which of the nations have refused to stand by it? Which of the nations have failed to stand by sanctions? I put that question to the Prime Minister. Not one—[An HON. MEMBER: "Germany!"] Germany is not in the League. [Laughter.] What a silly laugh that is. It is the sort of laugh that betrays the vacant mind. I am asking which of the nations in Geneva who voted for sanctions have withdrawn? The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary referred this afternoon to the well-ordered ranks of the League. They have not broken away, and he is going there now to break them. He is going to Geneva to smash the League of Nations. I wish he had left it to somebody else; honestly I do. The right hon. Gentleman was hailed everywhere as the champion of the League. I have heard of great meetings in support of the Covenant cheering him to the echo and placing great confidence in him. I am sorry that I am one of those who were taken in. His predecessor, when his policy was thrown over, had the decency to resign. It is true that he had a reassurance that he would be brought back after a period of quarantine, and when he comes back he


finds the wind tempered to the bleating lamb. But the right hon. Gentleman, with all the authority he has acquired, with all the hold he has upon millions of men who believed in him, is going to Geneva to smash the League. If you go there and go back upon the challenge you made to an aggressor—the 50 nations—and say you cannot bring him to heel, there is an end of the authority of the League of Nations.
This is a unique occasion. I have been in this House very nearly half-a-century, I am sorry to say, and I cannot recall an occasion quite like this. I have never before heard a British Minister, one holding the most important position in the Government next to the Prime Minister at the present moment, come down to the House of Commons and say that Britain was beaten, Britain and her Empire beaten, and that we must abandon an enterprise we had taken in hand. I cannot understand it. I cannot understand it of an Empire that faced one of the greatest emergencies that any Empire was ever confronted with, while thoroughly unprepared, and for four and a-half years fought her way through. That is not the Empire which I thought would ever say, through its spokesmen in the House of Commons, after six months, with no loss of life, with only £7,000,000 of trade loss, "We are beaten, we cannot go on." It is a unique occasion and may God never repeat it for this Empire. Why have we done it? I have got my views, and I am not going back on them. There is no intolerable burden of sacrifice. £7,000,000—very important, but only two-thirds of what the Empire paid in a single day in fighting for the vindication of international right and to redress the wrong of a little nation.
Why? "The danger of war" said the right hon. Gentleman. The danger of war is less than when we entered into these sanctions. I know the kind of thing that was then being said: that our Navy was unprepared, that it had insufficient ammunition, that it was ill-equipped under this patriotic Government. It was broadly said that this great Navy of Britain could not face the Italian Navy. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, it was talked about quite broadly all over Europe. Now the Navy is fully equipped, well equipped, perfectly ready for any

emergency, and there is less danger of war. What more? There has been a complete change, of the most vital importance, in the attitude of the two greatest Mediterranean Powers. Not a word was said about that. The Laval administration was hostile, and therefore it was very reluctant. It was only dragged unwillingly into sanctions because it was afraid to quarrel with Britain. That was the only reason. They were rootedly hostile, and did their best with all the ingenuity of that very subtle southerner, M. Laval, to thwart, to delay, and to destroy action. Now there is a Government of a totally different character. I read in the "Daily Telegraph" of Monday a communication from its very able Paris correspondent—and I think the "Times" had a similar communication. It said:
The position of the French Government on sanctions may be defined as follows: The Cabinet and M. Blum, the Prime Minister, have informed the British Foreign Office"—
Is that so?—
more than once that France would be ready to back Britain in every step she was prepared to take to enforce the League Covenant.
Is that true? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I think the House ought to know. The right hon. Gentleman professed to give a frank and full statement to the House. Is not that a very vital fact, that the new French Government have more than once intimated their readiness to back us up in any step we take to enforce the Covenant?

Mr. EDEN: If the right hon. Gentleman challenges me I am perfectly willing to reply. On more than one occasion I have approached the new French Government to endeavour to learn their attitude with respect to sanctions. They have told me that they are not prepared to take the initiative in raising sanctions. They have told me of their anxiety to work with His Majesty's Government. They have never given me the least indication, on the contrary, that they either desire to maintain present sanctions or would support the imposition of any fresh sanctions.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That in substance—I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am misinterpreting his answer—is what the "Daily Telegraph" said.


[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] This is very important, and if it is true that the French Government are backing out of it—

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: But you heard what he said.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. That they are prepared to back Britain in the action which it is taking. That is what I understand. They have not gone back upon that. Then this statement stands. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Does anyone mean to tell me that he believes in his heart that the attitude of the French Government to-day is the same as the attitude of the French Government before the elections? Of course it is not. They take a totally different point of view. An hon. Member over there says they do not take a different view at all. I should like to know what authority he has for that statement. This is one of the most authoritative men in France, and he certainly does not represent the Left. Spain has altered its Government and its attitude is different. So that from the point of view of war you have got the Mediterranean Pact, which you have had since sanctions. You have Spain and France infinitely more favourable than they were then. You have the whole of the Mediterranean Powers except Italy prepared to support you. And yet you are running away. Why?
The German menace? There was a hint from the Prime Minister in his famous phrase about "sealed lips" that there was some impending disaster. Everybody said, "That means war with Germany." As a matter of fact, when sanctions were imposed Germany had already challenged Europe. She had carried conscription, she was doubling her Air Force, she was building a new Navy—the present Government came to terms with her to sanction it—including submarines. There, at any rate, was something you might say was the menace of impending war—the building of a great new army and air force which were going to be equal to the greatest Power in Europe. But we knew that when we undertook sanctions. There is nothing new there. Three months ago there was the Rhineland occupation. At the moment it looked as if there were some peril there, and there was a good deal of apprehension in Europe. Nobody

believes now that the French Government are going to war over the occupation of the Rhineland. I am not minimising the peril of war in Europe. All I say is that the dangers are less now than when you undertook sanctions.
I am trying to find out your reasons for changing your mind. Austria? Well, Austria is always with us, always full of trouble. But there is one thing the people of this country have made up their minds definitely about. Whatever Government is in power they will never go to war again for an Austrian quarrel. [Interruption.] I am just telling you what my conviction is about the feeling of the country, and there is not one of you can deny it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Abyssinia."] Yes, but you have accepted sanctions for Abyssinia.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: As the Abyssinians are defeated sanctions must go.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Before you ever committed yourselves there was a good deal to be said for considering very carefully what you were going to do. I am dealing now with an action of this Government, in which it has taken the lead, in which it has condemned the aggressor and has organised the world behind it to enforce sanctions against the aggressor. The Government say, "We have failed," and therefore they have funked. May I invite the attention of the Committee for a moment to one or two questions about this failure? Where is the failure? You imposed economic sanctions. We, on this side of the House, said that they were inadequate; what was the answer of the Foreign Secretary? He said, "They will take time." He gave that answer to me. Oil sanctions would have been immediate, but economic sanctions, he said, would probably take time. We have not given them time. The foreign trade of Italy has dwindled to more than half. Why do you say sanctions have failed? You say: "Addis Ababa has been reached. Abyssinia is conquered. What is the good of going on? "[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am repeating the question with a view to an answer. Abyssinia has not been conquered. What is Addis Ababa? When we went to war with Abyssinia, Magdala was the capital. We captured it, and being fairly wise people in those days we went back. Addis Ababa is not even


traditionally the centre of Abyssinia. It is not, even now, the nerve centre of Abyssinia. It was one of the difficulties experienced by the Emperor when he organised the forces of the country. It is a tribal organisation, exceedingly loose.
Let us not forget our experience in the Boer War. [Interruption.] I am not likely to forget mine. We conquered Pretoria with the greatest ease—well, not with the greatest ease, but in a few months. As long as the Boers were congregating their forces together in an army, badly equipped compared with our own, we were able to defeat them. The real trouble came after the capital, which was a real capital—or the two capitals, Bloemfontein and Pretoria—had been captured, the Governments scattered and the President, Head of the Republic, in Europe, just as the Emperor is to-day; then our trouble came. It took us two years to try to conquer the country, and we did not conquer it. In the end we had to make a treaty with the guerillas there which ended in practically the restoration of independence of those people. Why are we giving up now, merely because Addis Ababa has been conquered? You say, "What is the motive" The motive is, the strain on Italy would increase. We had to double our forces after Pretoria. It was afterwards that we felt the strain. So will the Italians, and if you kept it up for another year you would find that you would be able to make terms with Mussolini. You may say: "You will never restore the thing as it was." Probably not, but you would restore freedom and independence, and the form of some better organisation, which would be an infinitely better thing for both Italy and Abyssinia. It is a fatal error to deprive yourselves of the means of bringing the necessary pressure, which would enable you in the end to establish a very much better peace than you could do now by running away.
But there you are; Italy knows. The Viceroy has already given up his job. I am asking the Prime Minister what our attitude is going to be, with the withdrawal of sanctions, towards those men who are still in possession of two-thirds of Abyssinia and are organising the only fighting which they can understand—guerilla fighting. What is our attitude

going to be? Are we going to close our frontiers? We surround the country on two sides out of three. Are we going to prevent their getting arms through our territory? I am told that the one advantage of private enterprise in arms is that arms can go through without the Government accepting the responsibility. Are we going to try it down there? You imposed an embargo on Abyssinia. You absolutely forbade her to sell concessions of property which were her own when she wanted to raise money to buy arms. You accepted the responsibility of defending her by those two acts. Now I ask: What are you going to do now'? Are you going to stop the whole trade in arms with Abyssinia by closing the frontiers'? Have you thought it out? Probably not.

Mr. EDEN: If the right hon. Gentleman challenges me in that way, perhaps I might be allowed to say that we have, of course, done our best to get in touch with the situation in Western Abyssinia, which is what, I suppose, the right hon. Gentleman refers to. That is the area where the Italians are not in occupation. Our information—I think we are the only country in touch with that part of the world—is that the independent Gallo tribes there are strongly hostile to the Emperor's administration. I must say that, in order that the Committee may know the true position.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. If the Abyssinians take a different view with regard to that, and they are of opinion that they can get arms through, provided they get them to the frontier, are the Government going to put an embargo upon them? I understand that they are not. That is definite.

Mr. EDEN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but this point is rather important. My point is that there is no Abyssinian authority, in Western Abyssinia—none.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I again ask: If those who are organising guerilla warfare—[Interruption,]—this is really a very practical question and it is bound to arise—in two-thirds of Abyssinia, are able to buy arms and to get them to the frontier, are the British Government going to impose an embargo on their passage? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]


Perhaps the Prime Minister will answer that question. It is a very practical question.

Mr. EDEN: If the right hon. Gentleman keeps asking these questions I must answer. If such an occasion should arise, of course, we would consider the demand. There is no such situation facing us at the moment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That means that the Government have not really considered it. The fact of the matter is, I am sorry to say, that there is no evidence that the Government ever meant business over sanctions. Sanctions were adopted immediately after the Government had decided to have an election. During the Election they never suggested any doubts at all. We have heard some very striking questions this afternoon, but I think the most striking quotation of all is not merely the Government manifesto, in which it was stated:
In the present unhappy dispute between Italy and Abyssinia, there will be no wavering in the policy we have hitherto pursued,
but most important in that document are the signatures. Their names were the guarantee that there could be no wavering:
Stanley Baldwin, J. Ramsay MacDonald, John Simon.
Who could doubt that we should have unflinching adherence to the policy which the Government had adopted?
That is not all. A book came into my hands a short time ago, known as "This Torch of Freedom." It contains the speeches of the Prime Minister. There is a very remarkable picture of him on the cover, with the torch of freedom illuminating his countenance. They are the speeches delivered by him before the Election. In one, he is talking about the difficulties of Abyssinia, and he says it is essential
that this country stand like a rock in the waves, however rough they may be.
The rock has turned out to be mere driftwood. He goes on to say: "We have got to go on steadily, facing risks. There are foolish people who are shocked at the idea that you may have to confront great risks in this policy. There lies our duty," he declared. He said, in a great message to the Peace Society, talking about this dispute:
Let your aim be resolute and your footsteps firm and certain.

Here is the resolute aim; here is the certain footstep—running away. He states that this speech, which was delivered on the eve of the Election, was delivered to assure the world that we stand by our pledges. Only a few weeks after the Election was over, they were negotiating treachery to their pledges. Fifty nations ranged themselves behind that torch—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Well behind it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They said, "Here is the British Prime Minister, with the greatest Empire in the world marching; we will range ourselves behind him." The Abyssinians believed it; the vast majority of the people of this country believed it. The Government had not been in for more than a few weeks before that torch was dimmed. To-night it is quenched—with a hiss; a hiss that will; be re-echoed throughout the whole world. The Government have led. How? There has been no stability, there has been no steadfastness, there has been no resolute pursuit of any particular aim. They go forward, then they go backward; they go sometimes to the left, and sometimes to the right—

Mr. HANNAH: Rather like the old Coalition.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Let me tell the hon Gentleman that that Coalition brought us right through to victory. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to taunt me. It did not, within six or seven months after it started to vindicate international right, run away from it. We had many faults and many defects, but cowardice was not one of them. The Government led. There have never been so many vacillations in the course of a few months in the conduct of foreign policy. The right hon. Gentleman has boasted to-day and he boasted in the last speech of his that I heard in the House, that we led the nations. That increased our responsibility. We led in the imposition of sanctions; we led also in the denunciation of the aggressor. We led, too, in proposing, I think, oil sanctions in principle; and we also led in selling oil in practice.
What were we doing We were leading! We dawdled for weeks before taking any action at all, after everybody knew what Mussolini was after. He never


concealed it; he has been perfectly straightforward—and we dawdled for weeks. Why? We were leading! We put an embargo on arms for Abyssinia when we knew she was going to be attacked, and when the Italians were massing armies and piling up arms such as have never been landed by an invader on the coasts of Africa. We put on an embargo. What were we doing We were leading the nations in the way of showing how an aggressor—a well-equipped aggressor—could be effectively dealt with ! We tried to compound a felony. We said: "This is a crime—the robbing of a nation of its liberty. It is a crime; we condemn it." And then we entered into negotiations to give the burglar half the goods. What were the Government doing? They were just leading the nations, they were just leading civilisation in the right way to deal with crime!
They were driven back by an outraged opinion. They were afraid of Mussolini. They dared not retreat very much further, so they skulked for three months in the communication trenches. What were they doing? They were showing the National Government's ideas as to leadership! And now they are running away, brandishing their swords—still leading! The right hon. Gentleman said so. I am going to Geneva," he said, "to lead." They are running away on the battlefield. I remember Sir Wilfrid Lawson in this House very many years ago telling us a story of a soldier who was found 20 or 30 miles behind the battle line. He was asked, "What are you doing here?" and he replied, "The Colonel asked us at the beginning of the battle to strike for home and country, and I struck for home." The Government have struck for home. They are there. Are they at the end of their activities? They have jumped about so much for the last six months that they remind me of that aeroplane about which we have heard so much in the last few weeks, the "Flying Flea."
I see the President of the Board of Trade here. He made a speech the other day. His one great objection to a Labour Government was that it was not stable. Among the many gifts that my right hon. Friend has inherited in this life, a sense of humour is certainly not one. A few

months ago there was not a speech delivered by a National candidate or Member, and certainly not by a Minister, which did not include the old phrase, "The prestige of this country has never been higher." [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] My friend over there is still articulate, but he is isolated. You dare not say these things now. Some have been abroad, and some have met foreigners from other lands, and there is one story that they all tell—that the prestige of this country has never been lower.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: It is not true.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Fifty nations trusted us. [An HON. MEMBER: "So they do now!"] They will not when they see the British Empire saying they cannot go on. They will never trust this crowd. I began my politics when you had very great names—Disraeli, Gladstone, Balfour, Joseph Chamberlain. There was a name that had only just passed away—he had not passed away when I was born—Lord Palmerston. You might agree with their policies or not, but no one doubted that they were men of dauntless courage. They pursued their policies without flinching and without fear. Now in their successors you have this exhibition of poltroonery. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been quoted. I am going to do myself the honour of reading a part of it again. The right hon. Gentleman is heir to the throne and recently he has been trying the crown on to see how it fits. I hope for his own sake that it does not. He has not merely tried the crown on. He has wielded the sceptre—which is just the sort of thing that heirs do when there are weak monarchs. The right hon. Gentleman said at the last election:
The choice before us is whether we shall make a last effort at Geneva for peace and security or whether by a cowardly surrender we shall break all the promises we have made and hold ourselves up to the shame of our children and their children's children.
To-night we have had the cowardly surrender, and there are the cowards.

6.35 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I had intended that perhaps a speaker from the back benches should occupy about a quarter of an hour. I noticed


throughout the whole of the Debate today an interesting feature of it, It is a long time since we have had one which seems to have stirred more feeling and more excitement, because after all what we are discussing is the functioning of the League of Nations. I will deal first with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition. The most serious part of the charge that he made against us was an accusation that we had misled the country and that we had recently committed a complete volte face. That point of misleading the country was also taken up in that extraordinarily brilliant speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), which showed me that he has not lost the least atom of the vigour which I remember in this House nearly 30 years ago and I congratulate him. It was a very remarkable performance. If there was one thing before and during the General Election which I took special pains to impress on every audience that I addressed, and which I also think I stressed in the broadcast, it was the tentative nature of sanctions and collective security. I said they were being used for the first time. I would follow them as far as anyone else would go. I did not know if they would be successful but, if they were not successful, there would be people who would say, "That is the end of the League." I explained that I never took that view. I said if they were not successful it was up to the League at its next meeting to consider where it had failed and whether collective security was still possible. I do not know that it is worth giving a number of quotations—I have armed myself with them—all of which consist of references from my own speeches. I think the House will do me the justice to believe me when I say that and to allow me to proceed with what I wish to say on the question of collective security, which is really inherent in this whole question and which must lie at the foundation of our policy for some time to come.
I do not think there is any matter in this country on which clearer thinking is more essential or on which in the meantime it is more difficult to decide what you ought to do. I am still convinced that, when the League meets in the autumn, it has to consider most seriously

this whole question of collective security. Colective security in my view, whatever the reasons may be—and many have been adduced on that side of the House and on this—has failed, and we have to get the nations of Europe together at Geneva to see that, if possible, it shall not fail again. There is immense difficulty in stopping a war before it has begun. That is far more important than stopping it after it has once begun. After war begins, the difficulty is immeasurably greater. The danger and the damage to Europe may spread far more widely and be more dangerous. I think these are the points that we have to consider with regard to collective security, and indeed they illustrate some of the very difficulties that we have been in and that have led in my view to the failure of collective action during the winter and the last few months. When the idea of collective security was originally embraced in the Covenant of the League it visualised more or less a disarmed Europe, that is to say, certain Powers had at that time been disarmed and there was every hope that disarmament might have spread among all the nations of Europe. Had that happened, then indeed not only would security of that nature have been easy but then you might really have had what some Members of the House have advocated with such sincerity and energy in the past, a system of an international police force which in my view, as at present I understand it, could only function in a disarmed or nearly wholly disarmed Europe, but is quite impracticable in the Europe as we know it to-day.
Ordinary financial and economic sanctions do act and will act, as a rule, slowly. Both right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken referred to that. When you put on further sanctions and they become more stringent, it is, of course, quite simple to see that the danger of war increases but, as a mater of fact, will the aggressor wait for sanctions when collective security is invoked against him? An aggressor may always prefer to fight if he is ready. If the State or States which aggress are strong and are prepared to fight, it is essential for collective security that the opposing combination shall be in a position to overcome the aggressor quickly. I think every one


will agree with that. I beg the House, as they are kindly doing, to attend to these few short propositions because they really are extraordinarily important. That postulates a real military preponderance on the side of the States which are trying to get collective security, that is to say, on behalf of the League States against the potential aggressor or aggressors. It is most important to realise that military preponderance does not necessarily depend on the mere numbers available theoretically. After all, let us take an aggressor, or a group of aggressors, who have a high state of organisation in their territory, who have ample means of military communication, who have ample supplies, who speak the same language and who have unity of command, and they may well be stronger than much larger forces that belong to different nations which speak different languages, which have no unity of command, which have never been trained to act together under one leader, and which may be separated from each other by great distances. Therefore, you come back to this point, that the forces of the League at any given time must be on such a footing as will ensure a certain and immediate superiority against the aggressor, and if that be not secured, though you may have in your collective security a large number of States, if you have not the power to act at once in the event of war, then you will find that the States that are weaker and are more nearly exposed to the weight of the aggressor's force will never hold their line, and you will find that your collective security may be hard put to it. I wanted just to put those points, and that is all that I would say upon that matter, because I want the Committee to be realistic, when it talks about collective security, and to know what it means. That is the security which we should desire and the security which we believe, and always have believed, we should aim at. Our experience of these last months has conclusively proved to me and to the Government that collective security in anything approaching that form does not yet exist. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] The question, as I have said in speeches in this House and elsewhere, that the League and Europe will have to make up their minds to answer is, Are they

prepared to put their forces into such a condition that they can rally immediately in support of the League States against any aggressor or any combination of aggressors that may turn up There is, of course, one other question that I think is worthy of consideration by the Committee. I caught a phrase which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs used, but I was not quite sure of the context, and I do not want to quote him unfairly. He spoke at one time of—and I think he meant—our troops refusing to take part in a war about Austria.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was talking about the British people when I said that whatever happened I was absolutely certain that no Government could get this country again to enter into a war in an Austrian quarrel.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that that was what he said, and that really confirms a very serious doubt I had in my mind, which I should like to put to the Committee. I think that this is a point that all Members of the Committee ought to consider. We often talk, statesmen who go to Geneva and many of us here, as to what the League should do and what it should not do, and statesmen go, and, I suppose, in certain circumstances they would commit their people to fight. I feel this about Europe, and I leave out Germany and Italy to-day with their peculiar and unsettled conditions, I feel convinced that among the common people of Europe in many countries and in our own country and in France, there is such a loathing of war as such not from fear, but from a knowledge of what it may mean, that I sometimes wonder if they would march on any other occasion than if they believed their own frontiers were in danger. I do not know the answer to that question, but I often ask myself that question, and I wonder, and when you begin to wonder on these points your wonderings may travel a long way. [An HON. MEMBER: "To the frontier on the Rhine."] I would like to add this on this point, that if you are to have collective security and if there be any truth in what my instinct tells me about men's hearts in Europe, then, indeed, one of the problems before the League of Nations is to educate the peoples of Europe, that they may be ready to fight


to restrain the aggressor, and I doubt if to-day they are. Those are the great problems to me. They are the most difficult problems of human nature and human instinct, and on the answer to those questions much may depend.
I have often said in this House that we make a great mistake in these days in believing that every people in Europe is animated by the same feelings towards peace and war that we have. I believe that this country, indeed, I am sure that this country, if ever threatened by anyone or by any combination of Powers in a way that they could understand to be a threat, would spring to arms as one man. I have never had any doubt about that, but I think that they may yet want a good deal of education before they will freely consent to take upon themselves all the obligations that might come upon them in fulfilling the Covenant in all circumstances. I hope they may educate them. I hope that the League of Nations will be able to make collective security a reality, but there are real difficulties about it. The Committee may remember that I said, both in my broadcast and in many speeches, that with the experience I have learnt I would not be responsible for sanctions again until this country had given us authority to strengthen our arms. The right hon. Gentleman may call that cowardice. Frankly, I do not. I think that it is what one owes as trustee for the people, but if there be war in this country, I mean war nearer than the Mediterranean, they will pay for it on the first night with their lives. That is why the Government, and I believe this House, as a whole, believe—nothing will make me believe that in their hearts hon. Members opposite see any less than I do—in the necessity for protecting our shores against air attack. Nothing will make me believe that. That is where the first blow may come some day if sanctions are applied against an aggressor. The man who puts sanctions on or allows this country to do so, unless he has done all in his power to see that his people can be defended at home, is not fit to carry the responsibility of governing his country.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Did the Government demand these precautions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers when they did impose sanctions in September?

The PRIME MINISTER: I said in the light of my experience. I wish to say a word or two about the totalitarian States in Europe, because I regard it as of the first importance in Europe that Germany, France and ourselves should work for peace throughout all Europe side by side, as the Foreign Secretary said earlier. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Russia?"] I want just to point this out to the Committee. I know perfectly well how many hon. Members opposite feel about the Nazi régime. I know that there are many Members in this Committee who regard with some disfavour a régime which lies further East. But let us look for a moment at what is the cause of this régime in Germany, and let us, in passing, draw a lesson from it ourselves. Germany lost the War, she paid a great price in the peace treaties, and she was left with very inconsiderable armaments, and we all hoped that disarmament was coming in Europe. I need not here go into the various reasons that made those conferences fail and how the countries of Europe lagged, but we do know that during those unhappy years which that country went through after the War she was very near to a state of revolution. The German is naturally a law-abiding man, and he had a glimpse into the abyss when Communism in Germany raised its head, and Communism was a creed of violence and force.

Mr. GALLACHER: Not Communism.

The PRIME MINISTER: Wait a minute. It was beaten ultimately by another creed of violence and force, and you have that great people who during many years have seen the régime that would, and the régime that did found itself on force, and what wonder that the idea of force, not an alien idea to the Teuton, should seem to dominate very much that mentality to-day. Yet Herr Hitler has told us that he wishes for peace, and if a man tells me that, as I have said in this House before, I wish to try it out. I come back to what I said a few months ago. I cannot see exactly now when or how the next opportunity may come, but, as the Foreign Secretary said, we are hoping to bring the French, the Germans and ourselves into conference for the better security of the peace of Europe. The part that Germany can play for good or for evil in Europe is


immense, and if we believe the opportunity is presented, let us do what we can to use it for good. I do not wish to stand much longer between the Committee and private Members. There will be further opportunities on Tuesday of debating these matters. I would only say that the view represented by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon commands the unanimous support of the Government, and that we believe that our method is not a method that will kill the League. We believe that to allow sanctions to go on, and ultimately, as we imagine, to peter out, would be a far harder task for the League to surmount than to face up boldly to failure. Time may prove that we are wrong. People may say that we are acting from cowardice, but I do not think that it is necessarily a mark of cowardice to take action which we know will be repugnant to large sections of our people. We take it because in the present state of Europe we honestly believe and are firmly convinced that it is the wiser of the two courses, and the one most conducive to peace. It is the peace of Europe that has been our daily and nightly care and anxiety all these many months, and will continue to be so.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not rise for the purpose of making a speech, but to say one or two things that must be said after the speech of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) suggested the other day that the House of Commons was becoming like a Pleasant Sunday Afternoon meeting, with an address by the vicar. That is what we have had from the Prime Minister this afternoon—a dissertation about strategy, a few airy nothings about peace, and no attempt to answer to the people of this country for the position in which his Government has placed this country. He has been challenged, but he has made no reply.
We propose to put on the Order Paper a Vote of Censure on the Government for the whole course of their foreign policy. What is the good of the Prime Minister telling us of a number of considerations that ought to have been in the minds of the Government before they went on this adventure? He says it was

an experiment and it has failed. It is an experiment that has blackened the name of this country in every part of the world. It is not surprising that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary has one word to say of the dupes slaughtered because they trusted his word. You had a Bing and his people. Your Government refused them arms. You left them to fight the battle of the League. You left them to be conquered by the aggressor, and when they were beaten and ran away you have not a word of pity for them. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members denying that. I get letter after letter from Conservatives saying that they voted for and trusted the Prime Minister, and now they cannot hold up their heads for shame.
That is one side only. The other side is that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have nothing to offer a world that is asking for peace. You do not get peace by running away, by shaking like a jelly at every dictator who shakes his fist at you. It is no good saying we are only retreating to stand again, that we will reconstruct the League. The right hon. Gentleman has killed the League and collective security. He has never honestly tried to make an effort. The Prime Minister had a great chance when this Abyssinian matter first came on of uniting all the people of this country to stand fast behind the League. We know now that we cannot trust a National Government so-called, a Conservative Government, to stand by the League. They have no principles. All they ask is for arms and arms and arms, and yet the Prime Minister says he is afraid that no one will be able to use them. He will not get anyone to use them, for the Government is not piling up arms for peace, but is leading this country back to the blood-stained tragedy of 1914, in a way that is unworthy of this country.

7.6 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: A great majority of the Members of the House have been supporters of the League of Nations and the policy advanced by the League of Nations Union. It is with a feeling of the greatest humiliation that many of us who supported the policy announced in the speech last September of the present First Lord of the Admiralty have listened


to the speeches in this Debate. It seems to me that the major criticism we have heard in the Liberal and Labour speeches this afternoon is vitiated by this all-important fact. They have arraigned the Government for having allowed the triumph of the gangster, as they put it, for having allowed the triumph of force over law, for not having enforced law against aggression, but they have consistently denied the policeman his truncheon.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Not only is that not true of the party to which I belong, but I remember a speech which the Noble Lord delivered in his own constituency saying that it was not the Liberal and Labour parties that must be blamed for the weakness of our defences, but the National Government.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not withdraw from that opinion. Those of us who have pressed the Government in the past to increase our armaments are entitled to reproach them with any weakness with which this country is confronted to-day. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to do so. The only reason why the right hon. Member is not responsible for this state of affairs is that he was in opposition and not in office. The armaments of this country would be a great deal weaker than they are if he had been; otherwise the speeches he has been making during the last two years have not been sincere. I do not think that I have heard him discuss the question of armaments without reproaching this Government for having armed excessively. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members who have done everything they could to prevent the policeman having an adequate truncheon, to complain that the gangster has triumphed.
I do not wish to misrepresent the attitude of hon. Members opposite, and I am anxious not to raise a party atmosphere, because this is a great national and international tragedy on which I believe a great many Members of all parties have suffered a terrible disappointment, and on which we have fundamentally common aims, although we may differ as to methods. The thing we should try to do is to see what can be done to repair that disappointment. I agree with very much that has been

said from the benches opposite this afternoon. This country has cut a sorry and pitiable spectacle during the last few months. Surely the fundamental cause is that we have not had armaments sufficient to enable us to play that role in Europe which the Government of this country elected to play. If the gangster nations—if you like to use that expression—are going to be heavily armed, how will the authority of the League prevail? What is the use of collective insecurity? What is the use of the peaceful nations of the world getting together if they have not the forces between them to enforce the decisions of the League?
I was struck by one expression in the speech of the Foreign Secretary, when he said that one of the reasons for the failure of sanctions was that the Italians won the war a great deal more quickly than all the military experts had prophesied. That meant that those who were imposing the policy of sanctions were not really looking to sanctions to defeat the gangster, they were looking to the Abyssinians and the weather so to delay the war and drag it out that ultimately sanctions would begin to operate. But what an admission of the futility and weakness of economic sanctions. The lesson to be drawn surely is that if the League decides to act against individual nations it must come to an act of war. There must be the employment of the policeman's truncheon against the gangster. Policemen do not deal with gangsters by sitting outside the house and preventing the baker calling. They have to deal with them by more forcible and speedy methods, and that is the only way in which the authority of the League of Nations can be exercised. If there is that force behind the League in armaments, then the League will have the same authority that the policeman has in dealing with criminals. His prestige and the fact that he is known to be armed will, in many cases, prevent fighting. But unless there is that force behind the League, that power of armaments in the hands of those nations who are loyal supporters of peace, then the authority of the League can never be what nearly every Member of this House wants it to be.
That is where I think we are entitled to criticise the Government. They have


led this country into this position because they have too long delayed the rearming of Britain. They have committed that mistake in spite of the gravest warnings, which they have belittled and denied during the past three years until about a year ago. When the history of this episode comes to be written it will be seen that the parting of the ways in regard to disarmament occured about 1933 or 1934. In that time it became clear to more candid and well-informed observers that the ideal of disarmament had definitely failed, at any rate for the time being, but the Government unfortunately refused to look facts in the face. Too long they clung to the hope that there was still some method of getting general disarmament, and all the while the armaments of Italy and Germany were daily contributing towards the situation that has now developed. It is no use the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) talking as if there was not deadly peril in the continuance of sanctions. We know that we are sitting on a powder magazine at the present time. We know the state of Europe. We have drifted into that position. The terrible tragedy is that this country is found in a position so ill-prepared, that the League of Nations is dishonoured, the League of Nations is weakened, and the prestige of this country is lowered, all because we did not grasp time by the forelock and prepare to carry out the old doctrine, in which so many of us were brought up, that if you want peace you must prepare for war.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: The Noble Lord made great play of the necessity of the policeman possessing a truncheon for use in international disputes. He laid stress on the point that the League of Nations, if it is to restore order as the international policeman, must be in possession of that truncheon. He criticised us on these benches for not supporting the Government in trying to restore the defence forces of the country. I deny that we on this side of the House are neglectful of the need for international force, or international organisation, and the possession of all the means necessary to enable the League to maintain order. The reports of our conference at Brighton last year clearly show that in our opinion the League of Nations must have sufficient

force to carry out its duties under the Covenant, and I challenge the Noble Lord or anyone else to point to any vote that we have given in this Parliament which proves that we are neglectful of our national needs in regard to defence. I would remind the Noble Lord of the fact that when the Naval Estimates, the Supplementary Naval Estimates and the Air Estimates have been before the House we have not voted against the Government. We have moved Amendments, as we are entitled to do, to reduce the Votes by £100 or £500, to call attention to certain things in the policy of the Government, but we have not voted against the Estimates as such. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is not that the Parliamentary method of moving a reduction?"] Yes, but it does not signify that we vote against the whole Estimate. No one can show that we have at any time voted against the Estimates or the Supplementary Estimates, as such. We have called attention to the fact that had the Government's policy been different the Estimates would not have come before the House in that particular form. I protest strongly against the attitude of hon. Members opposite who every time a Debate of this sort takes place accuse my hon. Friends on these benches of demanding a policy which would lead to War and yet voting against the Service Estimates. In actual fact none of them can prove that we have done anything of the kind.
The Noble Lord also hinted that we are faced with the present position because we are so weak that we are unable to stand up to the Italian dictator. If it is really true that we are unable to defend ourselves in the event of the Italian dictator taking steps to attack us if sanctions are continued, it was the height of criminal folly to have sent the Mediterranean Fleet to the Near East, where they might have been bottled up and sunk. I cannot believe the argument of the Noble Lord that the position is so serious as that. What is the position of Italy? She has half a million troops tied up in the Red Sea and sanctions are sapping her economic position, yet the British Empire is unable to stand up to the Italian dictator because the Noble Lord and his friends are frightened of the implication of what further action by the League of Nations might mean.
I speak as I do with the feeling of regret and bitterness which every one of us must experience at the present situation. We do not want to make party capital out of a situation like this. It is too terribly serious. There has been no more terrible disgrace to this country since the defeat at Yorktown, under George III and Lord North, when we lost the American Colonies. I only wish that it was not true that we have Lord Norths sitting to-day on the Government benches. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I would remind them that it was Charles James Fox and his associates in Opposition then—[Interruption.] A distinguished relative of mine wrote a history of Charles James Fox, and I think I know something about it. He expressed the folly of the British Government of that day, and we are trying to expose the folly of the British Government of to-day.
Is it altogether true that economic sanctions are a failure? Not knowing that I was going to speak I did not bring with me the facts which I possess, but all the evidence tends to show that the economic condition of Italy is rapidly deteriorating. Everyone knows, or should know if they have made a study of the economic position, that with the end of the War the problems of the Italian dictator are increasing rather than decreasing, He has to demobilise a portion of his army. His industries are now largely on a war basis. That means that the industries which are working to-day for war purposes will not be wanted, and they will have to turn to peace purposes, but they will find it difficult to carry on those industries in peace because of the pressure of economic sanctions. At the same time there will be hundreds of thousands of troops coming home for whom work will have to be found. Just at this time, the most critical of all, when we could have put pressure on the Italian dictator by means of sanctions, hon. Members opposite run away like rabbits into their holes and leave us confronted with a disaster as terrible as that of Yorktown, the result of which I am sure every progressively-minded person in every democratic country in Europe will be horrified to see.
There is one further point with which I should like to deal. I fear that the Government are really envisaging an

entirely different constellation in Europe, something which is not based on the League of Nations nor on a combination of the democratic nations of Europe to preserve international law and order. I do not want to see a League of Nations with Hitlerite Germany and Mussolini's Italy there unless they are prepared to work in co-operation with other nations. I believe that the totalitarian States of Germany and Italy are incapable of working with the other nations of Europe.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: What about Russia?

Mr. PRICE: Russia is in a different position. Russia, because of her economic position and her desire economically to reconstruct herself, is extremely anxious for peace. Her reason may not be the same reason as ours, but she wants peace and for that reason she is loyally cooperating with us. The disturbers of peace to-day are Italy and Germany. The hon. and gallant Member knows that perfectly well. It is not Russia that is making the trouble. Russia does everything possible to keep the peace. She has had great provocation on the Siberian-Mongolian Frontier from Japan, but she has done everything to preserve peace. If the same provocation had been given to Hitler or Mussolini there would have been war long ago.
The Government have never been sincere about the League of Nations. What they are envisaging is the possibility of buying off Mussolini, settling him the Eastern Mediterranean and bringing him back to the Stresa front, using him as a make-weight against Hitlerite Germany. Their object is not merely to control Hitlerite Germany but to make peace in the West and to give Hitler a free hand to attack Russia in the East. That is what they really want. I do not apply that remark to all the hon. Members opposite, many of whom believe in the League and want to see it strong and effective. The Foreign Secretary was one of those, but I do not know what he thinks now. I wonder how he dared to come to the House and make the speech that he has delivered to-day. If he had only resigned he would have had behind him every one who really believes in the League of Nations.
The Government do not want to see a League of democratic nations co-operating


among themselves to restrain the totalitarian aggressors. They think that they can buy off these aggressors one against the other, but these dictators are no fools. They will play us off one against the other. That is what they are doing. Every time we try to buy off Mussolini in the East, up will go his price. It is the same with Hitler. The danger of this policy is only too clear. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite do not see the danger and that even at this late hour they do not try to bring the League back to its proper position as an Assembly which would not only prevent the danger of war but the complete collapse of that international system of co-operation among the democratic nations which alone can preserve the civilisation of the world.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Sir George Penny.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order).

7.30 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Unopposed Bills to leave out paragraph (c) of Item 9 of Part I of the Schedule with regard to the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge.
"The Captains and the Kings depart," and I have to request the House to transfer its attention from the great problems of foreign affairs affecting peace and war, to a purely domestic issue, but one which, I submit, is of no little importance to the prestige and authority of Parliament. Anything which affects the prestige and authority of this Parliament, which is now one of the few democratic Parliaments in the world, is something of great importance in these dangerous and difficult days. Hon. Members will see that the London County Council are again asking Parliament to give them power to raise by a loan during the year ending 31st March, 1937, a sum of £155,000, and for the half-year ending 30th September,

1937, a further sum of £150,000—a total sum during the two periods of £305,000. The object of this loan is to enable the London County Council to borrow money in respect of expenditure incurred in pulling down Waterloo Bridge and erecting a new bridge. No figure is given this year as to the total expenditure involved, but in the statement which was circulated last year the estimated figure was given as £1,295,000. I need scarcely point out that if Parliament were to approve of the London County Council borrowing the smaller sum, they would be morally bound to give their approval to the larger sum of £1,295,000, or to any sum in excess of that amount which was ultimately found to be required to complete the demolition of the old bridge and the erection of a new one.
The application made to-night is in every respect the same as that which the London County Council made to Parliament a year ago, which was refused, and, therefore, there would appear to be no reason whatever why Parliament should reverse the decision at which it arrived in this matter 12 months ago. The London County Council have circulated two printed statements of four pages each in opposition to the Instruction, and two pictures are included of the proposed new bridge. I submit that the one-sided case submitted in these two memorials is wholly irrelevant to the matter upon which the House has to decide to-night, inasmuch as it deals with the merits of the question as to whether or not it was desirable that Waterloo Bridge should be pulled down. That is not the matter before the House to-night. Four years ago, and again two years later, the House of Commons went carefully into the question of the merits of the two proposals, the reconditioning and widening of the old bridge or the pulling down of the old bridge and building a new bridge and it was then definitely decided—I am not concerned to-night as to whether the decision was right or wrong—that it was not desirable that the old bridge should be pulled down, but that it should be reconditioned and widened.
Notwithstanding this decision, on the advice of the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) the leader of the majority party, the London County Council openly and avowedly de-


cided to defy Parliament and its decision: gave immediate orders for the pulling down of the bridge, and said that they proposed to pay for the erection of the new bridge out of the rates. Waterloo Bridge has now been pulled down, except for the old piers which still obstruct traffic in the Thames. It is therefore no longer a question of the merits, but merely the simple point as to whether Parliament is now going to acquiesce in the flouting of its authority, and is going to grant borrowing powers for something which it definitely decided should not be done.
In order to prove what I have said, and also that new Members of the House may know exactly the position, let me remind the House of the history of the case. In 1932, after a prolonged controversy, the London County Council, which then had a Municipal Reform majority led by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray), decided to pull down Waterloo Bridge and build a new one in its place. In June, 1932, they included a Clause in the London County Council (Money) Bill for that year asking Parliament to allow the Council to borrow money for the reconditioning of the bridge and also for pulling it down and rebuilding it. An Instruction was then moved approving the proposal to recondition the bridge, but directing the Committee not to entertain the proposal to pull down and build a new bridge. In view of this decision of Parliament, the Municipal Reform majority then in control at County Hall decided not to proceed with the proposal to pull down the bridge, but to accept the offer of the Government to pay 60 per cent. of the cost of reconditioning and widening the old bridge.
For this act of alleged cowardice the right hon. Member for South Hackney, who was then leading the Opposition on the London County Council bitterly jeered at the Municipal Reform party for not standing to their guns and demanding that Parliament should do what the London County Council asked them to do. In order that there should be no mistake as to the defiant attitude of the London County Council, the right hon. Gentleman opposite wrote an article in the "Evening Standard," of 3rd June, 1932, stating what he would have done if he had been in control at County Hall. If the House will allow me I will read a few sentences from this article. They

will see that I am not putting the case too high as to the intentions of the Socialist party at County Hall when I say that they were openly and avowedly defying Parliament:
'"Well, where are we now?' That is what County Hall asked itself after the decision of the House of Commons on the London County Council (Money) Bill … If I were running the London County Council I should take Parliament at its word. I should urge the council to find the money out of the rates, thereby avoiding the necessity for asking Parliament to sanction a loan.… This may appear to be financially terrifying to the ratepayer. But is it? The fact has to be faced that interest upon borrowed money constitutes one of our greatest financial burdens nationally and locally. We must borrow for a lot of things, but on the whole we have done too much borrowing and not enough paying out of revenue. The council's official estimate for a new Waterloo Bridge and the demolition of the old one is £1,295,000. Whether you borrow or pay out of revenue you have got to pay that anyway. But if you borrow, and the repayment is spread over the usual period of 60 years.… if that rate of interest were 4½ per cent., the total interest payable would be £1,748,250. And remember that the interest payable is in addition to the £1,295,000 loan, which also has to be repaid. By paying for the bridge out of revenue we save those vast interest payments.… As the product of a London County Council 1d. rate is roughly £250,000, it will be seen that we could pay for the whole job and get rid of the burden for ever after by a 1d. rate over five years. I should have vindicated the rights of local self-government; I should have freed the council from dictation by those self-appointed guardians of beauty who will assume that county councillors have no consideration for beauty..… That's what I would do. Will the London County Council do it? Ask me another! I do not run the London County Council.
There you have clearly the policy of the Socialist party on the London County Council, led by the right hon. Member opposite. Now I come to the year 1934, when there was a change at County Hall and when the decision of the Municipal Reform majority was reversed by the new Socialist majority under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman. To give him credit, he stuck to his guns, and at once decided to put into the London County Council (Money) Bill a provision demanding that they should be allowed to borrow money for
the reconditioning of Waterloo Bridge or the demolition thereof, and the erection of a new bridge.
There was an Instruction moved then, as it is being moved to-night, directing the


Committee that, while Parliament would be prepared to authorise the borrowing of money for the reconditioning of the bridge, it would not be prepared to allow the London County Council to borrow money for the demolition of the old bridge and the erection of a new one. That Instruction, after a, long and very full Debate, was carried by a very considerable majority, and power to allow the London County Council to borrow money for pulling down and rebuilding the bridge was again refused.
The right hon. Gentleman announced, immediately after that decision by Parliament, that the London County Council was not going to be dictated to by Parliament and that, as stated in the article to which I have just drawn the attention of the House, the London County Council, notwithstanding Parliament's decision, would pull down the old bridge and build a new one out of the rates, and defy Parliament. The demolition of the old bridge was at once proceeded with, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to emphasise the fact that the London County Council under his control was not going to be dictated to by Parliament, staged a very interesting and excellent cinematograph display of the last of the old bridge. He seized a workman's pick, held it aloft over his shoulder and, supported by one or two of the contractors' workers, was filmed removing the first stone from the old Waterloo Bridge. I am told that unfortunately the first film was a failure, so that the right hon. Gentleman had to pose a second time; there was a little delay but in the end an excellent film was prepared and duly appeared.
In 1935, notwithstanding all those brave words in the article and in the Debates of the previous year, the right hon. Gentleman found that his schemes for applying Socialism to London were involving considerable expense. This time last year the London rates had gone up by about 10d. in the £, and I would mention in passing that they have now gone up by 1s. 2d. in the £ Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman again decided that, for the third time, he would ask Parliament to allow the London County Council to borrow the money to defray the cost of pulling down and re-erecting a new bridge. The Minister of Transport, whom

I see on the Front Bench, was present on that occasion, and informed the House at the commencement of the Debate that, in view of the previous decisions of Parliament, in no circumstances would the Ministry make any grant out of the Road Fund for pulling down the old bridge and re-erecting it. I understand that there has been no change in the decision of the Ministry of Transport in this matter. The Minister added, however, that it was of course open to Parliament if it so desired—for this was a private Bill and the Government took no active part in the decision—to allow the London County Council to borrow the money for pulling down the bridge rather than to charge it on the rates as was originally intended.
Once again, after a full Debate, the House refused to allow the London County Council to borrow money to provide for the cost of pulling down the old bridge and erecting a new one. To show that there has been no change of heart on the part of the right hon. Gentleman since he wrote the article two years ago, I have had put in my hands a report of a speech which he made on 27th November last at the National Liberal Club, and I will quote some sentences from what he said:
The London County Council could govern the country better than the present House of Commons, but all it wanted was to govern London in its own way.… Jealously was behind the Waterloo Bridge controversy.… We will get the grant for that bridge, and I think we shall have the money this year. I do not care whether we get the money or not. If we get it, we shall have a victory;"—
that is to say, a victory of the London County Council over Parliament—
If we do not, we shall have a first-class grievance that will be of the greatest political value.
Some of us were twitted last year that we were dragging in politics. I have always taken the line that this is not a political matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite say "Oh." I made use of precisely the same arguments against the proposal when the Municipal Reform party was leading the council. Therefore, it is not a question of politics. The question is simply and solely that the authority of Parliament should be maintained against even the most powerful municipality in the land.
I come now to the present year. For the fourth time the London County Council is putting forward the same request. As I said a few minutes ago, the rates have now increased by 1s. 2d. in the pound. From the quotations I have read to the House, I think it will be agreed that there is no sign of any regret on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite or of the body which he has the honour of leading at having deliberately flouted and defied Parliament, and I can see no reason which would justify Parliament in reversing its decision of last year that the London County Council should be refused power to borrow money for the purpose of doing work which Parliament, rightly or wrongly, decided should not be done. It was argued during the last Debate that had the London County Council been a smaller and less important municipal body, had it been Liverpool or Manchester or Glasgow, it need not have come to the House at all. But it is because of its importance and the fact that it is such a vast body that it has to come to the House. There are two reasons for that. The first is that so important is the London County Council, so big is it, that no Minister has the right to turn down any proposal which the London County Council makes in the way of finance, and only Parliament can say "Nay" to any proposal which the Council makes. That is a privilege of the London County Council. At the same time there is a duty imposed upon Parliament, because of the importance and vast size of the London County Council, to see that it does not borrow money for any purpose of which Parliament does not approve. Therefore, it is clear that the London County Council is at no disadvantage compared with Liverpool or Glasgow, but is in a privileged position.
Parliament has on three occasions disapproved of this particular purpose, and I submit to hon. and right hon. Members that it is not possible for them to go back on previous decisions and to say that, by reason of the importunity of those at present in control at County Hall, Parliament will, contrary to its statutory duty, allow the London County Council to borrow money for the purpose of doing something which Parliament has on three occasions decided should not be done.

Finally, may I again remind the House that to-night we are not considering any question of merits? We are not considering whether Waterloo Bridge should have been or should not have been pulled down; we are considering only the small but very clear and important point whether, contrary to its statutory duty, Parliament should now permit of the borrowing of money for a purpose of which on three previous occasions it has disapproved.

7.57 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has traced very clearly the previous history of Waterloo Bridge. The matter has been approached by those who objected to pulling down the old bridge from various points of view. There was the attachment of those whose artistic and architectural taste caused them to take the view that Waterloo Bridge was one of the principal views of London still left, as recorded in pictures and admired by our predecessors. I confess that that view of the matter has great attraction, for me. To-night we are brought face to face with a very practical and simple issue, as the hon. Member for South Kensington has just reminded the House. The question has been brought here for decision because the London County Council is the creation of Parliament and is not in the position of the ancient corporations and ancient, boroughs having their own charter. The London County Council was deliberately set up less than 50 years ago by an Act of Parliament, and when that Act was passed careful consideration was given to the fact that London is the seat of Government, the home of Parliament, and the place where all the great offices of State are situated not only to administer the affairs of this country, but to be responsible for the direction of our world-wide Empire. In that respect London is in a very different situation from any other city.
It was also recognised at that time that the London County Council would have in itself an inherent importance and would be greater and more powerful than any other municipality, and that if certain precautions were not taken it might arrogate to itself rivalry with Parliament.


For that reason Parliament decided in the constitution of the London County Council that money Bills should be brought yearly before the House of Commons to be approved or ratified by Parliament or to be amended and submitted to the judgment of the Parliament of the day. That is the position in which we stand to-night. The right hon. Gentleman who now leads the London County Council will no doubt speak in the course of the Debate. When he accepted his office and took over the responsibility, he must have been well aware of those limitations in the relationships between Parliament and the London County Council.
I do not propose to revive ancient controversies. I will only remind Members that the proposal to build a new bridge was complicated by various considerations. It was objected that the proposed new bridge with six lines of traffic would send that traffic into an already congested area north of the Thames and would increase the difficulties and not improve the management of the traffic. As regards navigation also there were controversies. There was objection to the old-fashioned arches, although they had sufficed for a great number of years with few or no accidents, thanks to the skilful handling of those who navigate craft proceeding up and down stream. They at least never complained, although others complained for them.
We are now entering on the career of a new Parliament and it would appear that the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) thinks it worth while to try on behalf of the London County Council to get this Parliament to reverse a decision already three times taken. When he was speaking to the electors outside this Chamber he used, words of defiance and said he was prepared to undertake the financing of the pulling down of the old bridge and the building of the new bridge without raising a loan. If the ratepayers of London would give him power he would proceed in that way. Now apparently he wants a loan. There is something in the relation between Parliament and the London County Council which makes it essential that much stronger reasons should be advanced than any of those yet offered before Parliament gives way to the County Council.
There undoubtedly appears to be some considerable amount of temper and feeling in this matter, but after all, it is a business matter. Parliament has decided the matter over and over again, but those who are now in authority in the affairs of London are not satisfied with the decision of the previous Parliament and desire to raise this controversy again. They will have to put forward much stronger reasons than any yet advanced. The reasons advanced seem to be that if this loan is not granted London ratepayers will have a grievance against Parliament, and that it is a great hardship they they should not have a grant from State funds. That is a very specious argument. London gets enormous grants out of the Road Fund. One can see that by proceeding about London in the ordinary way. I hold very strongly that there is a constitutional question involved in this matter and that Parliament should continue to assert its authority and should not recede from the position already taken up on the kind of arguments that have been put forward to support a loan for a new Waterloo Bridge.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. G. STRAUSS: This Debate on Waterloo Bridge is almost becoming an annual Debate. I very much hope, for the sake of the dignity of this House as much as in the interests of good local government, that this will be the last time we shall have this subject discussed in this Chamber. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), who moved the Instruction, has opposed the County Council in this matter from the very beginning on the ground—with which I thoroughly disagree, but which I respect—that it was wrong for architectural reasons to pull down the old bridge. It is perfectly true that he has not gone out of his way to make this a political matter, but other Members of the House unfortunately have done so. I will deal with the merits of the question as raised by the hon. Member in a few minutes.
The right hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Instruction raised the constitutional issue. If that meant anything surely it meant that in technical issues which arise, on which the County Council are the responsible authority entrusted by Parliament to decide, this House should be the real authority and the County Council should be bound to follow what Parliament says, however certain


the County Council may be as to the rightness of their action, and although the County Council still remain responsible for the particular service affected. I suggest that the point is this. Parliament, having entrusted the cross-river facilities of London outside the City to the County Council, the County Council must remain the responsible body, and, indeed, would be responsible if a catastrophe happened on Waterloo Bridge, as it well might one clay, and many lives were lost, and would be equally responsible if serious traffic difficulties arose because the bridge was not adequate. The County Council must remain responsible for cross-river facilities in London. Parliament has entrusted that responsibility to the County Council, and if the County Council for any reason whatever did something which they deemed to be wrong and which they knew might endanger life or be against the interests of London as a whole, the County Council would rightfully be blamed by Members of Parliament and by the people of London.
What is the position to day? It was about 12 years ago that the bridge first started crumpling up, and acute controversy arose and continued unfortunately for about 10 years as to what was to be done with the bridge. In the opinion of many that time was much too long, and there was considerable waste not only of time but of money in coming to a decision as to what should be done with the old bridge. A decision was at last arrived at by a Conservative County Council, and the County Council came to Parliament proposing to do what, after the most careful consideration, they deemed to be the right thing. That was to pull down the old bridge and put up a new and adequate bridge in its place. If any other local authority had made a request to be allowed to do something of that sort there would have been no further question. The project would have been proceeded with straight away, particularly as the Minister of Transport had given the advice that a new bridge was desirable. But London is in the peculiar position that in order to prevent the resources of the capital city of the Empire being dissipated Parliament has enacted—I am not quarrelling with it—that the London County Council must come to Parliament and ask for sanction for any capital expenditure.
Parliament used that excuse, if I may use the word, to interfere with the administration of one of the services of the County Council, and when the County Council came to Parliament in 1932 it refused to give the County Council power to borrow for the building of a, new bridge. In spite of what the hon. Member for South Kensington said, the primary reason for that refusal was not on architectural grounds but on grounds of economy. If the hon. Member will read the report of the Debate that took place on that occasion he will find that made clear in speech after speech. The Debate followed on the economy election of 1931, and in speech after speech Members said that they had been returned to the House for the purpose of achieving economy, that here was an opportunity to do so and that they were going to exercise their rights to prevent giving the County Council borrowing powers. That was the main reason for the refusal. It was suggested by the hon. Member and those supporting him that the County Council should pursue an alternative policy of patching up the old bridge at an expenditure of approximately half the cost of pulling it down and putting up a new one, and they urged that that would be a wise saving of money.

Sir W. DAVISON: In accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commissions.

Mr. STRAUSS: That is so, but there were conditions attached to the recommendations of the Royal Commission—Charing Cross Bridge and other factors which I must not go into at the moment. In 1934 the County Council felt so strongly on the matter, and realised that the people of London as a whole felt in the same way about it, that they came to Parliament and again, asked for permission to borrow money for the building of a new bridge. On that occasion the argument was put forward that it would be wrong of Parliament to do so, because it would be wrong to give to a Labour County Council what had been refused to a Conservative County Council—an argument that had nothing to do with the merits of the case, with traffic considerations or architectural considerations or any of the other considerations which applied. Again Parliament turned down the very reasonable request of the


London County Council. What was the London County Council to do

Mr. FLEMING: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the argument about the money not being given, because the Labour party were in control on the London County Council, was used in this House?

Mr. STRAUSS: Yes, and if the hon. and learned Member will read the Debate he will find that that argument was stated by many Members.

Mr. FLEMING: I was present during the Debate and I have no recollection of hearing any Member use such an argument.

Mr. STRAUSS: The hon. and learned Member can take my word for it that such an argument was used.

Sir W. DAVISON: To the best of my recollection the argument used was that all the circumstances remained the same and that there was therefore no reason why Parliament should give way, merely because there had been a change of the party in control at the County Hall.

Mr. STRAUSS: The argument was stated in different ways by different Members, but I think I have fairly stated the gist of it. Moreover, when the Division took place Members who were against the County Council stood outside the Lobby and as Members came to vote called out "This way to down the Socialist Council." Mainly for that reason, though I do not say only for that reason, the County Council's proposal was turned down. What then was the Council to do? I believe that what they did is what would have been done in the same circumstances by practically every Member of this House, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). What were the alternatives which we had to consider? To have done nothing and left the old bridge standing would have been out of the question. We could have followed the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Kensington and patched up the old bridge, but what would that mean? First, the cost would have been, roughly, half that of pulling down the old bridge and building an adequate bridge in its place. Secondly, we were advised by all the experts that to patch up the

old bridge and widen it, as suggested, from three lines to four lines of traffic, would have left the traffic facilities quite inadequate, and that view was confirmed by the Minister of Transport. Thirdly, we would have spoiled the beauty of the old Waterloo Bridge. I hope that no hon. Member thinks that we lightly undertook the task of pulling down a bridge of such great architectural merit and beauty, but we were advised by Sir Edwin Lutyens that to widen the bridge would have spoiled its beauty. Lastly, we had before us the fact that the old bridge was extremely dangerous. That view was put forward with great force by the Port of London Authority, and we had evidence that there was danger to river navigation and danger to the lives of those who had to pass under the bridge in river craft.
We had no option, therefore, but to decide to pull down the old bridge and build an adequate bridge. I say again, that we did not come to that conclusion lightly, but only after very full consideration by the County Council and by its Highways Committee, of which I happen to be chairman. I, further, submit that a body such as the London County Council with its committees is better able than this House to consider a matter like this, involving difficult and complicated technical issues. It has the time and the opportunity to consider and weigh up all the technical factors and it can do so better than it could be done by this body with its vast interests, its international and Imperial concerns. I hope that that point, which I put with great respect, will be appreciated by all hon. Members.
In view of the facts which I have described the County Council decided to pull down the old bridge and proceed with the new bridge and last year, in the certain knowledge that we were doing the right thing, knowing that we had London opinion practically unanimously behind us, we asked Parliament to allow us to borrow in respect of the building of the new bridge as we do for other items of capital expenditure. Hon. Members on that occasion were more outspoken than previously and it was plain that some Members at least, deliberately voted against the County Council proposal with the object of embarrassing the Labour party on the County Council. I may read one


sentence spoken by a Member of the House on that occasion, Mr. John Rutherford, who said:
I gather that it is agreed that under this proposal, that if the Instruction is not passed, the rates will go up a little more, and a very good thing too, because it will at least have the effect of waking up those somewhat lazy electors—and that is the only way in which the Socialists will ever get into power in London—who have not taken the trouble to vote."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1935; col. 1654, Vol. 302.]
Obviously the matter was considered on this as on previous occasions in a political light rather than on the merits.

Mr. FLEMING: The hon. Member is not suggesting that Mr. John Rutherford was then speaking in any official capacity for the Conservative party.

Mr. STRAUSS: Hon. Members are aware that there is no question of speaking in an official capacity on such occasions. It was a Private Bill and people spoke as they liked upon it. But Members were urged to vote against the County Council on that ground, and therefore it is not surprising that there exists in London a feeling of grievance against the action of the House on this matter last year and in previous years. I think most Members will agree that there is some justification for the feeling of injustice which exists.
The argument was put by the Mover and the Seconder of the Instruction that the County Council was defying Parliament and that it was impudent on the part, of the County Council to ask Parliament to alter a decision which was taken only last year. I submit that there is nothing in that argument. Parliament constantly alters its mind on many questions and amends its own laws. I do not wish to be controversial, otherwise I might mention what took place earlier this afternoon. If Parliament were inflexible and if, once a decision had been taken on any matter, it never changed its mind, it would be a very poor kind of democratic body. But in fact Parliament often does change its mind, when new arguments, new waves of opinion, new facts are brought before us. There were 10 applications to this House before it agreed to allow the trams to cross the bridges. Therefore not only is it not wrong on the part of the County Council to come here to-day with this request, but in view of the strong feeling throughout London, it is the duty of the County

Council to come to the House, particularly as this is a new Parliament and to ask the House to remove the existing grievance. That is all the London County Council is doing.
I would put briefly to hon. Members a wider aspect of the question. It will be agreed, I think, that at the present time none of us should do anything which might conceivably undermine public confidence in our democratic institutions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I hope those who agree with me in that, will also agree with me that to turn down a proposal such as this, coming from the major local authority of the country; not on its merits but on political bias, would certainly undermine confidence in our democratic institutions. It would not only be damaging to our system of local government but would tend to lessen respect for the House. When Members shake their heads and act as if there had been no political bias in this matter from the beginning, the facts are all against them, as I hope I have shown. I would remind the House that all the county council is seeking to do is simply to be allowed to borrow on building a new bridge instead of having to meet the expenditure directly out of rate revenue. It is the thing that the county council and every other local authority naturally does in all matters of this sort where capital expenditure is involved. In the building of bridges, roads, schools, hospitals and other works, the local authorities naturally and rightly have the power to borrow against such expenditure. It is what every industrialist does, quite rightly, when he is laying down plant or putting up buildings which are going to last a long time.
That is all that the council is asking the permission of this House to do, and it is that which is being opposed in the Instruction. On the merits of the question there can be no two opinions that the county council should be allowed to borrow on this matter. I beg the House to consider this question on the merits only, and not to impede the county council in its work of building, with the full support of the people of London, the magnificent and beautiful bridge which will shortly be under construction and which I believe will be one of the finest architectural features of London. By


allowing the Bill to pass without the Instruction, Parliament will, moreover, enable this unhappy controversy between itself and the people of this great city to be finally and decently buried.

8.28 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) places the real issue clearly before the House. Whatever may have been the merits of the past controversy on the matter, the fact is that the old bridge has been demolished and a new one is being constructed, and the House is invited to express an opinion as to whether or not the London County Council should pay for the expenditure incurred out of capital or out of revenue. What the lion. Member for North Lambeth has said is perfectly correct, that normally a bridge would be paid for out of borrowed money. The attitude of the Government in this matter is precisely what it was last year. We endeavoured to express the issue then. It was not then solely one of borrowing or not, for the question of a grant was included. I have never retracted what I said on the subject of grant last year, and I invite the House to consider purely on its merits the question whether or not this bridge should be paid for out of borrowed money or out of the rates. It is normal for bridges of this character to be paid for out of borrowed money, and if that be the issue before the House, it seems to me a matter that can be simply decided without reference to politics or to past controversy. That is the frame of mind in which I would seriously ask the House to consider this question in order that it may be disposed of once and for all, and not be, as it has already been described, a hardy annual.

8.30 p.m.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I feel that the line advised by the Minister is the one that should be taken up. I speak with some measure of detachment because I am not a ratepayer of London and I have not been a member of the London County Council for some years. Those of us, however, who have been members of the council feel very jealous for the dignity and good will of that body and its work, and we shall support it. I want the

House to distinguish the controversies of the past from the issue of to-day. I was among those who regretted the decisions of Parliament in the past. The issue today is not whether Parliament, having made one decision last year is being deliberately flouted by the London County Council in its application to-day. My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), who brought this instruction forward, seemed to me to have made only that one point in favour of the Instruction. What appeals to me as the real issue is what will most do justice to the ratepayers of London. The ratepayer, called upon to pay his rates, will say to himself, "Is it fair that I should have to pay for this business out of revenue rather than the ordinary arrangement for paying it out of loan?" I cannot help thinking that the ordinary ratepayer of London is not in the least concerned with Waterloo Bridge, for it is being imposed on him for the benefit of the community as a whole, but if he is suddenly called upon by the action of this House to pay for a capital sum out of revenue, it will be a great injustice to him and one that we have no right to inflict. I maintain strongly that there is no question but that we should oppose the Instruction and agree to the Bill.

8.33 p.m.

Sir ROBERT TASKER: This is the fourth time I have listened to a Debate on Waterloo Bridge. It is more than a hardy Annual as far as I am concerned, because we have had this question before the county council for the last 12 years. The Mover of the Instruction concentrated his attention on what he described as the leader of the councils defiance of the House of Commons, and he said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) had been guilty of some indiscretion in talking to his electors and other people. Is there any Member of the House who has not been guilty of indulging in indiscretions The question is whether this House is to be influenced because my right hon. Friend indulged in certain political shibboleths which some of us believe are rather nonsensical, or are we concerned with the rights of the London ratepayer? My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) rather sought to concentrate upon my right hon. Friend defying the House of Commons. That is not the issue. The


real issue is that which has been put by the Minister of Transport.
This bridge has engaged the attention of many hon. Members who did not know anything about it. I have heard in this House the most amazing statements about Waterloo Bridge, which clearly showed that the Members knew nothing about it as a structure and very little about it as a work of art. I can claim that I do possess certain amount of technique, that I did examine the bridge in company with an official of the council, that I did crawl underneath the arches, and that I did make the suggestion that to relieve the stresses on the piers we should take 2,000 tons off the surface of the road, because there was a weight of something like 10,000 tons on each pier. I discovered to my astonishment, during those investigations, that this so-called bridge of granite was not granite alone but included sandstone and limestone, and that one pier had sunk no less than 26 inches. I was one of those Members who in 1926 attended a lecture delivered by an engineer—whom I am not going to advertise—who wanted to underpin the bridge. I asked him one question, "Can you restore those distorted arches without pulling them down?" He said, "No." It would have meant taking down two arches, supporting two others, and stopping navigation on the river.
Navigation on the river is one of the difficulties to be considered in connection with Waterloo Bridge. Those who have advocated that the County Council ought to do nothing forget that year by year the size of vessels increases and it becomes increasingly difficult to get ships and barges in tow through the arches. If the suggestion had been carried out to widen the bridge for vehicular or foot traffic it would have spoiled the bridge. If the piers had been widened that would have increased the dangers to navigation. Moreover, the records of the bridge, such as are in existence, do not indicate how many piles there are under—

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but are we to-night discussing whether or not Waterloo Bridge should be reconstructed, or whether the cost should be borne out of the rates or taxes?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): Up to the present time, listen-

ing to the hon. Member, I have not seen any reason to interrupt him.

Sir R. TASKER: The Minister has said that the point was whether the bridge should be rebuilt out of capital or revenue, and I am attempting to demonstrate, for the first time in this House—because I have read every debate on Waterloo Bridge—that the County Council were not guilty of folly in taking the action they have taken, but did only what men of my own political faith and creed should have done years and years ago. The only time I was howled down in the County Council was when I was telling members of my own party that they ought to pull down Waterloo Bridge. [Interruption.] I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who interrupts everybody and anybody, but as he has not been a member of the London County Council, and there are something like 100 Members of this House who have been, perhaps he will permit some of us to know something about the business of London.
I have stated what the issue is. Suppose that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) did say "We can pay for it out of revenue." So they could. A rate of 1d. in the £ brings in about £250,000, and if my right hon. Friend chose to exercise his authority with his supporters he could add 1s. to the rates in London, and find £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. But would it be fair to London? My right hon. Friend is too good a Londoner to try to injure his fellow ratepayers. Unknown to himself he possesses many attributes of the good old-fashioned Tory. He makes up his mind about a thing and carries it through, and that is in striking contrast with some people who seem to have minds like a flabby jelly, which will flow into any mould but will never take definite shape.
Knowing that Parliament has said to the County Council, "You shall be responsible for these bridges," it does seem to me an extraordinary thing that Parliament should say in 1932, because there had been a financial crisis, "We will not permit you to have this money"; later should change its mind and say, "We will not let you undertake this unless you combine it with a Charing Cross scheme"; and then change its


mind again and say, "We will not let you have the money at all"—should first say the County Council can have a grant of 75 per cent., then 60 per cent. and now no grant at all. I do not think that is a very dignified position. It was the Ministry of Transport which gave the decision about a grant, and yet only two or three days ago we heard that £5,250,000 was to be taken out of the Road Fund for the Treasury. We all know that the money which goes into the Road Fund is not drawn out by London. There are representatives here of other constituencies in which enormous sums have been spent upon roads, but London has been denied a contribution. We are not asking the Minister to pledge himself to give a grant of 60 per cent. or any other sum, but we do ask that Parliament shall do an act of common justice to the ratepayers of London and relieve them of some portion of the burden which they are now called upon to bear.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I am going to vote for the Instruction moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). As a matter of fact I am a voter in his division, although I live in Cornwall. I have never voted for him, but for myself, but still, as a resident in London, I am interested in this particular matter which has been brought up to-night and so often before. The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) introduced what I thought was a quite unnecessary political bias into the Debate to-night. So far as politics are concerned in this matter, my conscience is perfectly clear. In the first Debate I attended in this House, in 1932, I voted for the demolition of Waterloo Bridge. I could see no big architectural merits in the bridge; and for navigational reasons the plan which the London County Council put up in favour of the demolition of the bridge entirely and the building of a new one was a perfectly sound one. Very shortly after Parliament had given its decision the London County Council again came here, and my natural tendency was to feel rather annoyed at that so soon after Parliament had given a carefully considered decision, and my inclination was to vote against granting the money. That was in 1934. Finally I decided purely on those grounds.
In the meantime, control of the London County Council had gone from Conservative to Socialist. Therefore, I decided that I would give the slight weight that I could exercise in no way according to political bias and, I again voted for the demolition of Waterloo Bridge. On the third occasion when the matter came up I thought: "This is really a bit too much," and on that occasion, for the same reason that I shall vote for the Instruction to-night, I voted in favour of the Instruction on that occasion. I believe that my case is not an isolated one, because many other hon. Members felt as I did. We thought that the bridge should be demolished, but we disliked the council constantly flouting the decision of Parliament in this way, to use the words of one hon. Member who has spoken.
The Minister of Transport has said that the issue is a very simple one, and that it is not necessary to discuss whether the bridge is good or bad. The issue is whether the County Council are to be allowed to borrow for the demolition of the bridge and building a new one, or whether the cost is to be paid out of the rates. He gave us the advice, as I understand it, that the London County Council should be allowed to borrow, on the ground that big public works of this nature are usually financed by borrowing. He claimed that that was the only issue involved, but I claim that it is not. It has now become a constitutional question. The matter has been decided three times since 1932, and now, once again, we are being asked to reverse our decision.
The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) very forcibly although very moderately said that the London County Council is a responsible body and therefore it ought to be allowed to make decisions of this nature for itself, without the intervention of Parliament. That is true, and I would not contest it for a moment. The bridge will be built, anyhow, and the demolition has been going on very rapidly. The new bridge will soon be in the course of construction. We do not deny the responsibility of the London County Council, nor do we say that we should limit their powers to any large extent, but we must look at the matter rather from the other way round. We allow the Council by Statute to do certain things. Parliament has laid down that the London County Council shall


have certain powers, and on this occasion they want to do something which Parliament has definitely told them not to do. That seems an extremely important point when we come to consider how we should vote when the Division comes.
The hon. Member for North Lambeth also said that the vital issue in the Division of 1932 hinged upon economy, but I do not believe that that was really the case. I think it was decided, after the evidence was heard by hon. Members, on many different grounds, and it is almost impossible to decide which was the ruling one. It may be that in some cases economy had something to do with it, or that political bias had something, but not very much, to do with it. The hon. Member quoted a speech from Mr. Rutherford, who was Member for the Edmonton Division at that time. That, so far as I can remember, was the only speech during the course of those various Debates which showed real political bias. The discussions were kept upon a very high level. They were started with the consideration of the evidence as to whether it was good or not, and even after the London County Council control had gone to the Socialist party, political bias was notable by its absence rather than by its presence.
One hon. Member has rather complained that the London County Council ought not to have to come for authority to Parliament at all. They have to come because they are so big. Far from it being harsh that the London County Council should have to come here, it is rather a great privilege, because they have a right of audience to the King in Parliament, whereas the ordinary small local council, and even some of the bigger ones, have to go to the Minister. Whether they like it or not, the Minister decides whether they shall have the authority to borrow and to carry out any public works. The Minister very frequently turns the authority down. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) has said that it is very hard upon the ratepayers of London if the authority to borrow be not granted. There may be something to be said for that, but the bridge has to be paid for at some time by those ratepayers, and it is merely a question of whether they will pay for it quickly or over a long period of years.
I have no doubt that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) winds up the

Debate, he will give us some very interesting remarks upon the genesis and progress of the bridge, and good advice as to what we should do to-day. It is very amusing, and it will be interesting, to see the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the county council, defying himself as Member of Parliament, and urging himself to flout the authority of Parliament and to give him what he wants as chairman of the London County Council. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not yet."] I mean leader, or Fuehrer, if I may say so. Far from undermining the principles of Democracy, as was suggested by the hon. Member for North Lambeth, I believe that if we again refuse to grant the London County Council the powers that they wish, we shall be maintaining them. Surely the essential principle of a democratic system is that you have a Parliament whose power is supreme in the country, subject, of course, to the law. Therefore if you do anything which brings the authority of Parliament into disrepute it is bound to be a blow at the democratic system. I entirely agree that it is necessary to uphold it, in face of dictators abroad, but when you are going to Parliament for the fourth time in four or five years and saying: "See, you have made fools of yourselves in the past. You have made wrong decisions. Will you please eat humble pie and reverse your decisions?"—

Mr. MESSER: Did the Government not do that with sanctions?

Mr. PETHERICK: The decision in that case was made in entirely different circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite do not know that Italy has conquered Abyssinia or a large part of it, or they have forgotten it, or they do not read their newspapers. In this case we are being asked to do something in precisely the same circumstances. The circumstances have not changed. The London County Council are still asking power to borrow for a new bridge. Where have the circumstances changed? In face of the same circumstances, Parliament is being asked to change its mind. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the House at least—because I know which way hon. Members are going to vote—will put aside all political bias, as I have done myself. I think that hon. Members, after my explanation at the beginning of my speech, must do me that


justice. I hope that my hon. Friends here will vote for the Instruction, not because they want to stop the Socialist majority on the London County Council having what they want, but purely to uphold the honour and strength and respect of Parliament.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have been waiting very patiently to hear from the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) any real reason why he is proposing to vote as he tells us he intends to vote. He gave us no argument except the statement that the House of Commons, having done this thing three times, must not change its mind now. But this is a new Parliament. Parliament exists to remove grievances, and, when a new Parliament is elected, very often a grievance that was not removed by the previous Parliament is removed by the new Parliament. It is a new doctrine altogether that, once Parliament has said something, it cannot say something different another day.

Mr. PETHERICK: I do not like to interrupt one of the most respected Members of the House, but I would point out that in this case Parliament is not being asked to change it decision once; it has been approached four times since 1932.

Mr. LANSBURY: But there is no law that says you shall not keep on. I have lived long enough to know, and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) is very nearly in the same position, how many times great questions have come before this House and been turned down, and then finally a Parliament has been elected that did exactly what dozens of other Parliaments had refused to do. Take the question of tariff reform. It took 25 years to begin to nibble at it, and each Parliament turned it down, Session after Session—

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Only two Parliaments.

Mr. LANSBURY: Only two Parliament? Two hundred, nearly—all my lifetime, which is a very long time. Lord Chaplin was the great protagonist for tariffs, and he went to his grave without seeing them come in in the fashion in which we have them to-day. I am sure that the hon. Member, when he has had a sleep on this,

will realise how wrong his speech has been to-night, and how little reason he has for saying that, while he has changed his mind, Parliament is not to be allowed to change its mind. The hon. Member is a Member of Parliament; why should not other people change their minds also? The majority of Members of Parliament change their minds. Really, it is a nonsensical argument.
There is no real argument against the rebuilding of this bridge. I remember that, when Harry Gosling first came to the House, this question was up for discussion. I do not think that any Bill was before the House, but that it was one of those occasions when people had an opportunity of raising such a question. It may have been on Supply. Harry Gosling gave us a very clear and informative statement with reference to the bridge. He pointed out that, since the erection of the bridge, the Thames Embankment had been finished, and the whole currents of the Thames had been changed because of that. Those who constructed or drew the plans for the original bridge could not have had in their minds the change that he as a lighterman knew had taken place. If he had been listened to on that occasion, we should not have waited so long as to have to do this thing in so great a hurry as is the case now.
As I understand it—and it is a little difficult always to understand hon. Members' objections on this matter—as I understand it from what I have heard tonight and on other occasions, their objection is that the London County Council must not be allowed to do as it pleases in the matter of pulling down an old bridge and putting up a new one. In the first Debate we were told that we must not allow the county council to pull down this beautiful monument. The whole case was that, whatever we did in the way of building a Charing Cross Bridge at enormous cost, we must preserve Waterloo Bridge as a monumental work of Rennie which was of such value from the architectural point of view that it should not be destroyed. But even in countries and towns which are devoted to splendid architecture, every now and then some gem has to be taken down because of age, and Waterloo Bridge, when Harry Gosling made his speech, was beginning to give indications of what was going to happen.
if hon. Members care to turn to the OFFICIAL REPORT and read his speech on that occasion, I think they will find that every word he said has come true, and that the county council ought to have had the power at that time to deal with the bridge. I am told now that there is tremendous inconvenience, because of the delay, in regard to traffic on the river, to say nothing of the frightful delay in the case of traffic from the North to the South side of the Thames. I should have liked very much to see a comprehensive scheme for a very big widening on both sides of the river, and a real effort to deal with the North-to-South traffic, but that has all gone by the board, and we have now to deal with the right of the London County Council to get from Parliament the same measure of consideration that is given to practically all the other local authorities.
The difficulty which the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth seems to see, in comparing other local authorities with the London County Council and with the citizens of London through the London County Council, is that while we have a direct approach to the King through the House of Commons, another council to whom the Minister might deny the right to get a loan would have no appeal. He seems to forget that we have the same right as any other part of the country to challenge a Minister's decision in Committee of Supply. The right to approach the King through the Commons is inherent in every individual in the country. That argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman goes by the board. There is nothing to it. I think the County Council now has gone out of the realm of experiment and may be trusted. I always thought so from the beginning. But let us concede that it was a new and a very big experiment in self-government right in the centre of the Empire. It has been going now for a long number of years and there is not an expert in local government anywhere but would agree that it has shown itself one of the finest bodies of administrators in this or any other country. For that reason I should be very glad to see this provision go. But Parliament, having that power, like everyone else with great power, must exercise it with reason because, if it does not, if the House continues to pinprick this great administrative body in this way, there will be a very great rising

of popular opinion in favour of giving it the same freedom that other bodies receive. I notice an hon. Member opposite vigorously taking a note. I hope he will take down all that I said then. It is all contingent on him and his friends continuing to play the fool with the London County Council.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I should like to explain that I thought most of it was not worth recording.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sure of that, because we appreciate each other and we return the compliment to one another. I do not, at any rate, take so many opportunities of appearing to record my opponents' sayings. The whole argument on this question as I have heard it, if argument it can be called, is based on the assumption that the London County Council has done something it ought not to have done, that is, a Tory county council and a Labour county council have come to Parliament three or four times for the same purpose but, since the last occasion, the council has actually taken the matter into its own hands and said, "if Parliament will not give us the power to borrow this money we must, for the safety of the people who use the river and for the convenience of those who wish to go across the river, do this job even at the cost of doing it out of the rates."
It is no use saying that is a fanciful picture. It is nothing of the kind. I challenge those who are going to take part in the Debate to say that the bridge could remain standing. I challenge anyone of them to say that the centre arch would have stood up much longer. I travel up and down the Embankment every day, sometimes twice and three times, And you only have to use your eyes to see, almost every month or six weeks, some difference in those centre piers. I want to Ask those who are going to oppose the county council what they would have said if the bridge had tumbled down and there had been a great accident. It may be said the council ought to have done what some Members of Parliament said should be done, but really I think the argument of the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) is unanswerable. What technical or practical knowledge did hon. and learned and right hon. Gentlemen


have of the bridge? No one has challenged my hon. Friend. He has told the House that the county council took the very best advice it could and that to rehabilitate the bridge in the way they proposed would have been to give a botched-up bridge which would not have fulfilled any of the requirements of those who used it. No one has yet said that Sir Edwin Lutyens does not understand his business. He advised the council on the question of building up on each side of the bridge. Other experts have given other advice. They acted on the best advice they could get—not the advice of a lot of people who only think they know, but of people whose business it is to know. I hope that hon. Members opposite who have come down for the purpose of bilking the London County Council once more will reconsider it from the point of view put by the hon. Member for North Lambeth and not at all met by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth. [Interruption.] I understood he was A lawyer. If I have libelled him, I am sorry.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: A timber merchant.

Mr. LANSBURY: He is in my trade. We are pals in that, anyhow. The hon. Member, trying to answer my hon. Friend, argued that they were upholding democracy in passing this Instruction. That is really too far fetched also. Nearly every statement of the hon. Member was not on the spot, and this one particularly was not. After all, Parliament delegates certain work to the London County Council. Parliament has only taken the power to challenge expenditure from a financial point of view. I believe it is an innovation to say that Parliament shall override the expert knowledge of the body to which it has entrusted the power to do certain things. I am not now speaking of the power to raise money. I believe Parliament kept that power jealously in its hands so that the council, being such a big body, should not injure the financial standing of the country as a whole. That, I believe, is the reason for this control. I do not believe for a moment that those who introduced and carried that control ever imagined that the British Parliament, this Mother of Parliaments, would spend as many hours as we have

spent during these four years in trying to override a decision upon a piece of domestic work of this great body to whom they have entrusted the job. I do not think that it was ever contemplated that that would be done.
When it is said that there is no party feeling in this matter at all, we have to remember the many occasions, when a Socialist proposal is included in a Bill of a municipal authority, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) run in double harness against us. We are bound to remember it, but this time we know that their case against us is based upon a certain amount of suspicion that there is some wicked bogey of Socialism floating round somewhere under the piers of the old bridge, and they have to drag it out. They ought really on this occasion to be much bigger and to recognise that, if Parliament gives power to a great authority like the London County Council, it is a very bad thing to tell my constituents, who are not as well off as hon. Members opposite, that they must find the money. I do not know how well off is the hon. Member who spoke last, and perhaps I am as well off as he is, but I would remind hon. Members that in Lambeth, Poplar, and Bermondsey, and in the poorer parts of the Metropolis, a ½d. on the rates goes on to their rent. They are willing to spend money on necessary things, but they will be certain, if this Instruction is carried, that the burden that will be put upon them compelling them to pay for this bridge out of the rates, will have been put upon them by their political opponents, and they will not believe that there is any other reason. We need not go out and preach class war or class hatred; actions they say speak louder than words. By the carrying on of this fight as it has been carried on year after year, and, if to-night it is again decided that the payment for this bridge shall come out of the rates, the working people at least will know that the extra burden is put upon them by those who object to the manner in which they use their votes. They have put into power a small Socialist majority at the County Hall, and no one can point the finger of scorn at the work that that body is doing.
There has not been a speaker to-night who has challenged the validity of the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth, in which he told the House the whole story of the bridge—much clearer than I could do, because I am not acquainted with it as he is—and I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody who believes in democracy can go into the Lobby in support of the hon. Member for South Kensington. I often join with him in trying to preserve something that we both feel worth preserving, but here is something that is tumbling down, and the County Council, fighting against the opposition of Parliament, which is not based upon any real principles at all, are forced to take action. We ought to be asking for a grant for this bridge. We are not asking for a grant, but for the right of the people and ratepayers of London to borrow money for a great piece of capital expenditure, and some hon. Members in the House are going to vote against our having that right. I believe that if they carry this matter against us again, many of the hon. Members who sit for London constituencies will never sit again.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I listened with the closest attention, and, indeed, with a large feeling that I ought to listen with interest and attention to every word which falls from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I realise that he has the right to speak in this House as one who has paid very great attention to local government in this country and who has given very great services in times past to the problems which arise in carrying on that government. I never feel my deficiencies when speaking in this House on matters of local government so much as when I realise that by the accidents of life 1 have never had the benefit of taking part in local government. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks to us in terms of democracy about this matter, I sometimes wonder whether this House is to be regarded as having no rights as representing the people of the country to express an opinion which is contrary to the opinion expressed by other people representing local government. I do not go construe my functions in this House. We are sent here to give effect to the rights which are given to Parliament in particu-

lar instances. The House may think that it is improper or undesirable, but the right exists that we should exercise some amount of control over local government from this House.
I desire to approach the matter from that point of view, and also from another point of view—in the tradition in which I have been brought up in connection with my every-day work, that when a responsible tribunal has decided upon a particular matter, it is in the interests of the people of this country as a whole that we should not go back upon that determination and that view, unless there has been a change in the circumstances which induced us to come to our former decision. This House has on more than one occasion debated this subject. I have formed an opinion about it to which I still adhere, an opinion which perhaps hon. Members opposite may think is largely induced by sentimental feeling towards what I have chosen to regard as a great monument to the efficiency, skill and artistic knowledge of our forbears. But I put that all on one side.

Mr. DUNCAN: If that is so, surely the circumstances have changed, for the bridge has come down?

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: This House has considered the whole matter on more than one occasion. I gave at that time consideration to the arguments which were advanced and having done that, the House, not by a small majority, came to a view about it. There really is no case for a re-examination. Of course, I recognise that we are right in a sense to use the advantage of an old motto and to "try, try again," but if the arguments are the same arguments—and I submit that they are in effect, notwithstanding the interruption to which I have just paid attention—is there any good reason at all why the House should change the opinion which it has expressed on former occasions? That seems to me, from the point of view with which I approach this subject, decisive in the present case. I have read with care and attention the document which I received this morning on behalf of the promoters of the present Bill. I was unable to find in that document a single statement which pointed out anything new. I could not find any argument which was not among those to which I hope I paid due, adequate and


impartial attention on the occasions when this matter was previously before the House. I could not see that any case had been made out for what is really attempted to be done here in one form or another, the rescission of the view to which this House came before and the coming to a new determination on facts which this House heard debated in full and decided upon in the course of the last Parliament. I am driven to the conclusion—I hope that I am not doing anybody any injustice—that the real reason for this present attempt is—and I am far from saying that they are not entitled to try it—that inasmuch as this is a new House of Commons they may have better luck with this House than they had with the last one.

Mr. KELLY: Have you found that out?

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: But where is this to end? There has been a certain convention in our public life that when we have finished with our differences and disputes, that when we have decided upon the controversies of the moment, each House, each successive Government, by what I venture to think is a wise convention, comes to the conclusion that the matter having been decided we had better carry on.

Mr. KELLY: Surely not.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: It has been done—with the exception of one or two matters of particular controversy which it would be out of order for me to mention this evening, and particularly those in connection with trade disputes—through the greater part of the time when I have been of sufficient sagacity to take any interest in public affairs.

Mr. GALLAGHER: Why was not this argument of yours applied to sanctions?

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Before any body of persons come to this House with the object of getting us to go back on a previous determination, they should not only make a case for showing that there is a change of circumstances, but they should make a very strong and potent case. I have watched with care—I drive under the bridge every day, and in the days of my youth I walked over it every day al I believe so many Members of this House have done—to

see what there is with regard to the circumstances of Waterloo Bridge which would make us alter our decision; and although I have heard a great many arguments which may no doubt have been extremely good arguments for this House originally, having arrived at a different view, the view having been taken and the determination having been arrived at, I have not heard or seen anything which would suggest that there had been any change from the circumstances which existed when this House came to its determination.
The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last referred more than once to what he thought were pinpricks which had been directed against the London County Council. I am not one of those who would ever desire for a moment to adopt that kind of attitude with regard to any body of citizens who are carrying on the arduous and difficult job of local government in this country, and inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to suggest that the activities of some friends of mine and myself with regard to local legislation in this House were directed with a feeling of hostility to local bodies which was dictated by a political feeling, I would beg him to observe the Order Papers of this House when he will find that my Friends and I put down Motions in connection with local bodies and the Bills they promote quite indifferently as to whether those Bills are promoted by Socialist bodies or by those who represent a different political opinion. If he will be kind enough to look at the Order Paper at the moment he will find Resolutions down, to some of which at least I have given the support of my name, to Bills which come from bodies which are of the political opinion to which I adhere.
I approach this matter from a perfectly simple point of view. I approach it from the point of view of the desirability of the business of this House being conducted in such a way that when we come to a determination about a matter that must be the end of the matter, unless we are able to show that there has been some circumstance wholly left out on the previous occasion, or some circumstance which has so changed that it makes it desirable that we should have another go. I have looked to see whether this


case comes within either of those categories. I find that it does not, and, in accordance with the training I possess, I find myself compelled to say on this occasion that I see no good reason for altering or going back on the decision which this House gave on at least two former occasions. For those reasons, I am bound to say that I intend to support the Motion which has been moved by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).

9.35 p.m.

Mr. SILKIN: In addressing the House for the first time I know that I can rely upon the indulgence and sympathy which the House always gives to its new Members. If I understand the argument of those who are supporting the Instruction, it is that if this matter were being considered on merits for the first time, that if the House really had to consider whether it was proper that the £155,000 which it is intended to spend this year on the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the construction of the new bridge were to be paid for out of capital or out of revenue, the only answer could be that it was proper that the expenditure should be met out of capital in exactly the same way as the money for items in the Schedule of the London County Council Money Bill are being paid for out of capital.
It is suggested that the prestige of Parliament is involved, that the London County Council have adopted a defiant attitude in the past, that the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has made speeches in some club, that Parliament has on three occasions decided this matter, that it is right that the ratepayers of London should be penalised, and that some form of economic sanctions should be imposed upon them on account of the action of the wicked Socialist London County Council. I should like to point out that the London County Council has in no sense flouted the authority of Parliament. The county council has given the question of the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the construction of a new bridge the most careful consideration. I have been a member of that body for 12 years and I know of no matter which has received more careful and more prolonged consideration than the question of Waterloo Bridge. It is a question which in the

last resort is the responsibility of the London County Council, and I submit that it is proper for the county council in the last resort to take the responsibility for doing what it considers to be the right thing, after taking into the most serious consideration the views of this House.
On several occasions the county council has had the views of this House before it, but they had a responsibility to the people of London to provide what they thought to be the most appropriate form of bridge, and they could do no other than provide the bridge which they thought was the most suitable in the circumstances. I wonder what the people of London and the people of the country would have thought of the county council if the general view of the council was that it should provide a new bridge, with six lines of traffic, and it really believed that to be the right thing, in which view it was fortified by the opinions of two Ministers of Transport, yet instead of doing what it thought to be the right thing it did something which it thought to be the wrong thing. The county council would have been justly blamed and seriously criticised as the body primarily responsible if it had taken a course which it thought was not the best for the people of London.
I submit that the county council has in no way flouted the authority of Parliament, that it has taken into serious account the views of Parliament, but that reluctantly, after the most careful consideration, it had to disagree with the views expressed in this House, and take the final responsibility. The county council has been penalised for disagreeing with this House. Already £175,000 has been expended on Waterloo Bridge, and the whole of that sum has been paid out of the rates. No part of that sum has been provided out of capital. The county council, I do not say cheerfully but respectfully, has put up with the consequences of the decision of the House last year and it comes to the House this year and puts before it an entirely fresh case, in accordance with the requirements of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). It puts forward the case that this year it is going to spend £155,000. The money which has already been spent has gone and has been paid for out of the rates, but this year the county council ask the House to


authorise it to provide out of capital the further £155,000 to be spent this year. I submit that that is a new case. It is not the case which Parliament decided last year. Last year's decision was in respect of a, totally different figure for a totally different period, and the county council accepted the decision of Parliament last year.
Furthermore, this is a new House. The political complexion of London itself has changed, and the county council is entitled to come to this new House and to have an opportunity of stating its case to the new House so that Members of the new House should have an opportunity of reviewing the situation. The situation has changed, because while hon. Members on previous occasions took the view that they were in a position strongly to influence the kind of bridge that would be put up by the county council, the situation to-day is that the old bridge had gone and that there is a new bridge under construction. The only matter before the House, therefore, is whether that bridge should be paid for out of capital or out of revenue. It would be a monstrous thing if the whole cost of that bridge from now on had to be paid for out of revenue by the righteous and the unrighteous alike. The constituents of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) have taken the line, presumably, that he takes, and they will be victims just as much as the constituents I represent or the constituents of the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). That is unfair to the ratepayers of London who take the view of the hon. Member for South Kensington.
Finally, I submit that the House is entitled to consider the matter afresh. For that view I have the authority of no less a person than the seconder of the Instruction last year, Commander Marsden, who is no longer a Member of this House. In his concluding remarks, in seconding the Instruction, he said:
There is no reason at all why next year, when the new bridge is being built, they should not come forward again to borrow money, and I for my part would then feel disposed to agree with them; but on this occasion, if Parliament's authority and decisions mean anything, I hope that Members of the House will pass this Instruction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1935; col. 1621, Vol. 302.]

They did, and I hope that now that the London County Council and the people of London have taken their medicine and we have come forward again this year, the House will reject the Instruction and permit the rest of the cost of the construction of Waterloo Bridge to be met entirely out of capital.

9.45 p.m.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: My first duty is the pleasant one of congratulating the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on a very admirable maiden speech. He has a great knowledge and experience of local government, and it is quite appropriate that his maiden speech should be on questions which are so intimately connected with the London County Council and the citizens of London. I am sure that we shall look forward with great pleasure to his interventions in our debates. In a few moments I shall vote against this Instruction for the fifth time. For it has been solemnly moved over a period of 10 years and one would imagine, listening to the speeches of the Mover and the Seconder, and to the legal arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) that the only argument which should have any weight is the constitutional argument. What are the facts of the case? We have been repeatedly told that Parliament has consistently decided that Waterloo Bridge should not be pulled down. I want to remind hon. Members that just as some hon. Members change their minds so has Parliament changed its mind on this question. On the 18th May, 1926, a similar Instruction to the present one was moved by the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton):
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Schedule 1, Part 1, Item 9.
He went on to explain that:
One of the purposes of the expenditure is the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge and the provision of a temporary bridge, for which £100,000 is proposed to be expended during the current financial year and another £100,000 in the first half of the next financial year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1926; col. 213, Vol. 196.]
During that Debate our old friend Mr. Gosling made a very moving speech, to which the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has referred. That Motion on being put to the House was lost by 96 votes for the


Instruction and 158 against it. Therefore, in 1926 this House approved of the demolition of Waterloo Bridge, and it is just futility to argue that the House can be accused of some inconsistency if it decides, as I hope it will, to vote this evening against the Instruction.

Sir W. DAVISON: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House. That was before the Report of the Royal Commission.

Sir H. JACKSON: I am not misleading the House. That was the decision of the House in 1926, and the long and rather melancholy history of this story since then is not one that reflects any great credit on a large number of people. During that same Debate I quoted from the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Committee, of which I am now chairman, and this is what I said 10 years ago, on a Motion similar to the one we are discussing to-night:
Waterloo Bridge has failed by reason of age and traffic stresses. It is clear that a road bridge at this point cannot be dispensed with, and also that the present temporary relief structure cannot be regarded as other than a makeshift. The bridge must be constructed to its present dimensions or a new bridge providing for additional lines of traffic must be built. The Committee understand that the London County Council are advised that it would cost approximately £1,000,000 to reconstruct the old bridge in its present form and dimensions and £1,300,000 to provide a new bridge for six lines of traffic. Having regard to the estimates of cost and to the small additional expenditure required to provide for additional width, they are driven to the conclusion on purely traffic grounds that a new bridge to accommodate not less than four lines of traffic should be proceeded with as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1926; col. 237, Vol. 196.]
Now the bridge is going to be proceeded with, and as one who has taken some part in the problems of London traffic I wish to say here and now that we look forward to the great advantages which the new Waterloo Bridge will bring to the relief of London transport. Its immediate effect will be to relieve the congestion in the Strand, and if better approaches from the north are provided in the future it may become a bridge of vital importance. Therefore, I say that we should sweep away all these trivial questions as to whether the House of Commons should or should not change

its mind. What we want in London to-day is more bridges across the Thames, and I think we should express our gratitude to the London County Council for giving us a bridge which, in the opinion of those who have a right to express their views on London transport, will be a great boon to London.
May I say one word more in the interests of London ratepayers? This is not a political question. I have supported this proposal made by a Municipal Reform County Council and by a Labour County Council. It has been consistently approved by every type of London County Council during the last 10 years. After all, the London ratepayer is asking this simple question: "Why should I be treated differently to the ratepayers of Manchester, Glasgow and the West Riding and other great municipalities?" If the expenditure on a major matter of this kind is distributed over 30 or 40 years the burden on the ratepayer is naturally small, but we are asking the ratepayers of London to meet this expenditure during a period of five years. We are asking why London, which, after all, is the capital city and has the biggest and in my opinion, the best local government in the world, should be treated differently to other great municipal authorities and receive no aid? We have heard a great deal about sanctions. Cannot we raise sanctions on the London ratepayers? By doing so we shall be doing a great service to the millions of ratepayers in the metropolis. Finally, in the interests of decency, cannot we bury this controversy? It is not very creditable to go on living in the old worn-out trenches. The day is past, and I appeal to hon. Members to have done with these things once and for all and defeat the Instruction to-night, which I hope will never be resurrected.

9.54 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I want to join in the appeal that has just been made. I was one of those who fought to preserve the old Waterloo Bridge on aesthetic and practical grounds, but I was defeated. The bridge has now been pulled down, and the simple issue is: Are you going to make London pay for the new bridge out of capital or out of rates? Is it a proper capital charge, or is it expenditure which should be defrayed out of the annual rate account?


Obviously the answer is that it is a proper charge to go to capital account. I would remind the House that it is an historic tradition, dating back to the old Metropolitan Board of Works that London, as a great authority, should have the privilege of approaching Parliament direct. Other minor authorities such as Manchester, Liverpool or Glasgow do not have that privilege, but go to the Ministry of Health. If London were an ordinary authority, the House of Commons would have no power in the matter, for the London County Council would go to the Ministry of Health, and undoubtedly the Ministry of Health would in this case have passed this amount of money as a proper charge to capital account and the money would have been forthcoming. It is a very simple issue; it is a local government issue. I think it would create an unfortunate impression in London if, because some people wanted a particular sort of bridge and others a different sort, we were to make the unfortunate ratepayers bear an unfair charge by forcing them to pay for the bridge out of the annual rates bill, instead of out of capital account. Therefore, I shall vote against the Instruction.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. H. STRAUSS: I would not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). I should not like it to be thought that either as a lawyer or as a Tory I agreed with him. As I understood him, the main propositions which he put forward were two. The first was that Parliament should not reverse a previous decision unless there were new circumstances, and the second was that there were no new circumstances. I disagree with him entirely on both those propositions. I know of no authority for the statement that Parliament should not, if it sees fit, reverse a previous decision. In fact, the argument seems to be based on the proposition that one is not entitled to think that any previous Parliament has made a mistake. I can only say that I certainly do not propose to base my actions in politics on that supposition. I also disagree with the suggestion that there are no new circumstances. A new circumstance is that there is a, new Parliament, and if it be true, as I believe it to be, that the main

question we ought to be considering is which is financially the more proper course to take, the matter is one in which the circumstances can change every month, and certainly from one year to the next.
It has been suggested in a rather farfetched way that we ought to support this Instruction because we should be striking a blow for a beautiful bridge. Of course, we should be doing nothing of the kind. As has been pointed out, the beautiful bridge has gone. I was a little shocked by some of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken questioning whether what has been destroyed was a beautiful thing. I think that in itself and in its miraculous combination with Somerset House it was one of the architectural glories of this city. But that architectural glory has been destroyed, and as one who was not in the House at the time in question, I can only recall with a certain regret that, to the best of my recollection, nobody in any quarter put up much of a fight for the bridge as an architectural thing of beauty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes!"] Let me finish. If I remember correctly, even those who wished the bridge to be retained were in favour of its being widened in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission and that, in the eyes of anybody who had studied the matter at all, was destined to ruin the bridge. Therefore, I do not think the bridge was ever very well championed. Moreover, I am bound to say, in connection with the remarks of people who refer to having been over the bridge, that frequently I have gone under the bridge as an amateur navigator, and having done so in a small boat, I never had much difficulty; but I certainly had a good deal of sympathy with those who had to go under it with a whole series of barges. While I greatly admired their skill I am bound to say that, greatly as I admired the architectural monument, I do not for one moment suggest that the London County Council had no case.
But we are not fighting for the bridge which has gone, nor, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), for democracy. It seems to me to be an extraordinary point of view to put forward that somehow if we vote one way or the


other on this matter we are fighting for or offending against democracy. It does not seem to me that if this House comes to a decision on a question of fact to the best of its ability, it is doing anything against democratic government. To my mind the question must be merely which is financially the more proper course to be taken, and on that point I have not heard it seriously disputed that this is a proper purpose for which borrowing should take place, It has been said, I know, that in some way the London County Council, if we did not support the Instruction, would be receiving condonation for the offence of having defied Parliament, but I think that is rather farfetched. Had it been the fact that a grant depended on our vote to-night, or that, if we failed to pass this Instruction, an automatic consequence would be some Government grant to the London County Council—and I do not wish to go into the merits of the question of a grant—I could understand a very forcible case being made out in favour of this Instruction; but as we have had the assurance that no grant is to be made in any event—I understand that was the attitude of the Ministry of Transport, although I was rot present when the Minister was speaking—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): That undertaking was given by the Minister.

Mr. STRAUSS: That being the case, I think we can be clear in our minds that we are not called upon to express our view on the demolition of the bridge. We are not called upon to take any particular action by the fact that we believe in democratic government. We are not bound, however good Tories we may be, to say that this House cannot reach a decision this year different from that which it took last year. In all those circumstances I believe the point at issue is the simple, naked point; is it or is it not right that this particular type of expenditure should be met by loan? Believing on the undisputed evidence that that is a proper way of dealing with it, I shall vote against the Instruction.

10.5 p.m.

Sir GEORGE HUME: As the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) has raised a constitutional

point, I think it is well to consider for a moment what is the real function of this House in dealing with a London County Council Money Bill. I remember that in 1927, when I had charge of a Money Bill, an attempt was made to raise some question as regards grievances felt by certain members of the staff of the London County Council. On that occasion the then Speaker pointed out that he had to consider the limitations which were imposed upon this House by the Statute. He said:
I do not see how their grievances can be discussed on this Bill. The only reason why the Bill comes before the House is that there is certain control over the expenditure of the London County Council. The hon. Member prefaced his remarks by referring to the procedure on railway Bills. I think it is quite a different case, where a statutory company comes to the House, because by an ancient procedure of the House grievances may then be discussed if they are special to that company, but it would be rather a serious matter if we were to raise on the Floor of the House the ordinary administrative work of a great body like the London County Council.
He went on to say:
I must adhere to my Ruling. It is most important, for local government reasons, that we should not review the details of local administration.
I think it is necessary that this House should realise how far its duty and responsibilities go in the matter. I notice there is another Instruction on the Paper following this one which would certainly interfere with the administrative duties of the London County Council, and I venture to think that as regards the matter of Waterloo Bridge the House was getting very near the borderline when it dictated to the London County Council as to the details of the manner in which they should deal with that bridge. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) that this House did at one time grant to the London County Council the right to work on capital expenditure. At that time the administration at County Hall was very anxious to keep in close touch with this House, and we held our hand because it was desired that a Royal Commission should go into the matter.
I am not going to take up time going step by step through all that has taken place, but I do not think this House can be proud of the way in which it has handled administrative matters with


which, I venture to say, it is not competent to deal. When I remember the advice the council received from responsible officers and from committees which have studied the matter in detail, when I remember that the proposal was held up by individuals with no responsibility, when I remember that the Debate was listened to by only a small proportion of Members, and that Members crowded in afterwards, I venture to say that it would be an unhappy thing if the House of Commons were to be encouraged to deal or endeavoured to deal with administrative matters which really do not fall within its province and for which I venture to say it has no responsibility. I, therefore, hope that the House will not pass this Instruction because if it continues on these lines it will be no longer a question of defending the rights of privileges or dignity of the House, but it will amount to a matter of persecution.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: On the 18th June, 1815, the battle of Waterloo was fought and won and lost. On the 18th June, 1817, Waterloo Bridge was declared open to the public. On the 18th June, 1936, the battle of Waterloo is being fought over again, and I hope very much that the result will be such that it will have been fought over again for the last time. I do not propose to argue at any length the merits of the policy adopted by the council or the merits of the decision as to what to do with the bridge. In 1924 it was ascertained that there were weaknesses in the bridge and that there was danger of collapse, and the first decision of the county council was to demolish the bridge and build a new one.
Then there arose in this city and in the country a very great and almost bitter controversy as to whether it was a crime against beauty and aesthetics and architecture and history for that bridge to be demolished. The battle raged with enormous vigour. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir Percy Harris) was on one side and I was on the other side. The controversy cut clean across party divisions and a furious row went on, but the county council upon the merits of the question, whether the council was Tory or Labour in its majority, always came to the conclusion

rightly or wrongly that the bridge ought to come down. I most strongly held that view when I was in opposition, and I hold it now that my party is in power.
Shortly my view is that bridges cannot be expected to last for ever, and that a bridge in the middle of the traffic arteries Of London cannot reasonably be treated as an ancient monument. It is a bridge, with the function of allowing traffic to travel from one side of the river to the other, and it must be regarded as a bridge and as a traffic proposition. It seemed to me that to preserve a bridge with three lines of traffic right in the heart of London was a ridiculous thing to do in the twentieth century. Moreover, as the cost of patching up the old bridge would have been a substantial proportion of the cost of pulling it down and building a new one, it seemed a scandalous waste of public money to do such a thing. I am a Socialist, and hon. Gentleman opposite will find it difficult to believe that I am careful in the expenditure of public money. But I am, and the chairman of the spending committees of the London County Council will tell you that I am a positive terror in controlling the council's money, in conjunction with the chairman of the Finance Committee.
Honestly, I cannot reconcile my conscience to the spending of a very substantial sum of money—by far the major portion of the cost of a new bridge—on merely patching up the old bridge, corbelling it out to take four lines of traffic so that architecturally it would be a different bridge from the bridge which it was desired to preserve as an architectural masterpiece. So I said it ought to come down and we ought to build a new bridge. I do not want to go through all the adventures of this business in the House of Commons, but they have been many. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) said, in the first instance the House passed the Second Reading of the County Council (Money) Bill, containing provision for the bridge, by a very substantial majority.
But then the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister of to-day who was Prime Minister then found sanctions applied to him by the architectural people who are known as—I say it with great respect, I do not use it as a term of abuse—the long-haired people. They have an enormous social pull and the Prime Minis-


ter came to the conclusion, I have no doubt quite sincerely and genuinely, that if he allowed the old bridge to be interfered with he would certainly be defeated at the next General Election. He was absolutely wrong but I fully understand his feeling. He sent for the representatives of the council and said "I think we ought to have a Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic." That is a common and legitimate device whereby decisions can be avoided for the time being. The leaders of the Tory party on the council and myself representing the Labour party went to him and the Tories said "all right we shall hold up on the bridge." I told them in front of the Prime Minister that they were wrong and that they ought to go on with the scheme.
They did not do so and for 10 years—and I try to say this in a non-controversial way but it is a difficult job, because I have so often said it in a controversial way—the council and the Government and the Prime Minister, who is genuine about these artistic and aesthetic matters, wobbled all over the place. It is an extraordinary thing that the bridge itself did not wobble all over the place. There were delays for 10 years, until this question of Waterloo Bridge became a test of the capacity of the British people for decision in democratic government and capacity in public administration. Then we won a great victory at the 1934 election and came into power. We had held the view all along that the bridge ought to come down. The hon. Member for South Kensington has quoted an article which I wrote for Lord Beaverbrook's evening newspaper. I will apologise for that if he thinks it necessary, but there are not many occasions upon which I can express my views in that quarter and receive payment for doing so. I like to get my views expressed in quarters in which they are not ordinarily received, and incidentally I may mention that this week or last week we have, for the first time, received support in that quarter. It is true that they have mixed it up with a lot of abuse on me personally, but I do not mind that and I am glad to say now, that every London evening newspaper—two Tory and one Liberal—are with the council in this matter.
As I say, we came into power and I, with my hon. Friend the Member for

North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) as chairman of the Highway Committee and my friend Mr. Latham as chairman of the Finance Committee, decided that it would be a great waste of public money to patch up the old bridge when for a little more money it could be replaced by a new bridge. We said we did not believe that all the great British architects were dead. We said we believed that there were great British architects alive and that we should find one to build a Waterloo Bridge which would be a worthy and dignified successor to the admittedly unique structure of Rennie, who was an engineer. We said we could not conscientiously waste the money and we came, properly and constitutionally, to Parliament to say "Please Parliament will you allow us to borrow money to build this bridge."
I want to put the constitutional position as I see it. I suggest that the hon. Member for South Kensington has got the constitutional position all wrong. A whip has gone out for this Instruction, stating that it is laid down by Statute that the London County Council can only borrow money for purposes of which Parliament has approved and that Parliament has disapproved of the purpose in question here. With great respect that is wrong. It treats the matter from the wrong angle and it is not precisely true. It is important that we should get it accurately. Section 4 of the London County Council Finance Consolidation Act, 1912, deals with this matter, and it says nothing about approving or disapproving of the purpose of the expenditure. What it says is that the council may, during any financial period, that is to say the financial year or the following six months, expend on capital account, for such purposes as may be mentioned in the annual Money Act relating to that period, such sums as they may think fit, not exceeding the amounts specified and so on. Approval of the purpose of the expenditure is really conferred on the council in the specific statutory powers given to the council to do certain things. Acts of Parliament confer upon the council power to build, mend, repair and demolish bridges over the River Thames. That is a statutory power which the council possesses all the year round, every day, all night, Christmas Days, Bank Holidays and all the time.

Sir W. DAVISON: Out of revenue.

Mr. MORRISON: We are not talking about that for the moment. It is a perfectly fair point to raise, however. The statutory power and, indeed, the statutory duty to do certain things is imposed upon this council in those Acts, by the Local Government Act, 1888, by certain Acts and powers conferred upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, and, before that, certain powers and functions conferred upon the justices in quarter sessions assembled. They are powers and requirements to do certain things, and this House and their Lordships' House have, in fact, by British constitutional procedure delegated to the London County Council certain duties, functions and powers. This House decided that it is not convenient for Parliament to build bridges and to decide whether a bridge in the county of London should come down or go up. Parliament did not want to be bothered with these details of local administration, so Parliament, whose supremacy I admit and glory in as a good Parliamentarian, deliberately delegated to the London County Council the functions in connection with Thames bridges in the county of London.
Having delegated that power to us, and having not only conferred that power upon us, but imposed a duty upon us, Parliament must not interfere every now and again and say, "We want you to do this bridge one way and that bridge another way." Parliament having imposed the power and duty upon us, I, as the leader of the council, with any colleagues must discharge the duties that Parliament has conferred upon us and, indeed, imposed upon us. What is the Bill? Here is a great local authority spending somewhere in the region of £40,000,000 a year.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: £10,000,000 too much, judging by my rates.

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Gentleman is not a great authority on municipal administration. He may have the duty of looking after the Croydon Corporation, but he has no statutory duty to look after us. We spend on revenue account somewhere in the neighbourhood of £40,000,000 a year, and we borrow substantial sums for housing, schools, hospitals, drains, fire stations, bridges and all sorts of things. Parliament said to the county council in the beginning, "You

are going to be a public authority of such magnitude and importance that, instead of your going to the appropriate Minister, you will go to the Treasury for sanction for your borrowings." We went to the Treasury for a number of years. Then it got so big that the Treasury, being a modest department of State—in those days—said, "This is getting too big for us to deal with as a departmental matter; you are so big and important that you ought to go to Parliament annually by way of a Money Bill." The council said, "Very good, we will do so."
I am not grumbling at all. It is a privilege to come to this House on the annual Money Bill. We are delighted to come. I would sooner come to this House on the annual Money Bill for sanction to borrow sums for all purposes than go to a Minister in Whitehall every day of the week about every item of capital expenditure. I appreciate the privilege and do not want to disturb it. I do not want a row with the House of Commons if it can be avoided. What is the issue? The issue before the House upon a Money Bill is not whether a particular piece of expenditure on pulling down a bridge or propping it up is right or wrong; the real function of the House is to decide whether the financial policy of the council is ruinous, whether the total borrowing powers are excessive, whether the money is being wasted, and so on. Therefore, as regards the first decision of the House, when a large body voted on the issue of economy—that was then the major issue—we were nearer to constitutional accuracy in the situation than we have been since; because the real function of the House is a financial function, since it has delegated the executive and administrative functions to the London County Council.
I want to be perfectly frank with the House. This House did strike out that provision, and it did it for reasons that were mixed, some purely aesthetic reasons—I think that was the major reason with the hon. Member for South Kensington but there were a number of others. But I cannot forget—I am sorry it sticks, but I cannot forget it—that in the Lobby there were shouts going up, "This way against the Socialist county council," that there was an element of political prejudice. I cannot forget that, and I do not like it. I do


not like the persistent opposition of a certain little group of Members when anything progressive comes from a local authority or comes from a Labour majority. As an illustration of the undesirability of the House being involved in politics in connection with Private Bills I would remind the House of what occurred on the Bill for the Western Exits Road improvement which came before the House the other week. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss), for whose support I am much obliged to-night, was then one of the opponents. That Bill was promoted jointly by the London County Council—Labour—and the Middlesex County Council—Tory—at the request of a Coalition Liberal Minister of Transport. That was the parentage of that Bill. The question has nothing to do with politics, any more than this bridge has, and yet a Whip was sent out, signed by a series of Conservative Members, which said this:
You are earnestly requested to be present and vote against the London and Middlesex Improvements, etc., Bill promoted by the Socialist London County Council which is down for Third Reading.
I say with great respect that that kind of thing is a degradation of Parliamentary procedure. I do not care whether I have a Labour majority, or a Tory majority, or a Communist majority, or an Anarchist majority on the London County Council. When I come to the High Court of Parliament I expect the High Court of Parliament to act in a quasi-judicial capacity. I am a private subject of His Majesty. I come to Parliament for certain powers by private Bill, under ancient rights and privileges that it has conferred upon the subject under Parliamentary usage. Parliament is then sitting as the High Court of Parliament. It has no right to victimise me because I have a Labour majority on the council, and no right to deal with this matter in anything but a quasi-judicial capacity and upon the merits of the case. I admit that after that experience I went back to the County Hall—I had written previously for the "Evening Standard" in 1932—and asked: "What has Parliament done?" and answered it by saying: "Parliament has said that for this particular purpose we will not permit the London County Council to borrow." I said "Very well. Let the council accept the position. We must bow to the

will of Parliament. We will not borrow. We will take the money out of capital moneys. We will take it out of revenue, out of current account, and get it that way." That was perfectly constitutional, and certainly perfectly within the rules of the game, too. Parliament had a right to say: "We shall not let you borrow for that purpose." All right. I have not borrowed. I have paid the money out of the till, out of current revenue. My constitutional conduct is absolutely 100 per cent. correct.
I come back again to this House—twice. This is the second time. I will come back a dozen times. I have a perfect right to do so under the Standing Orders of the House and the rights of the private citizen. I come back to this new, and I hope wiser, Parliament, and I say: "Please, Parliament, give me the power to spend this money out of capital account." What is wrong about that? You cannot save the bridge now. It has gone. I helped to get it down myself, I know. I made speeches about it. One of the most revolutionary, apparently, was made within the portals of the National Liberal Club. Again the hon. Gentleman did not get all that I said. I said: "If I were a mere politician, which I am not, it would suit me handsomely that Parliament should play about with the council and interfere, on partisan grounds. It would be all right if I got the money. If I did not get the money, I should get a first-class political grievance." I said: "I am not a mere politician. I am above that sort of thing. I would much sooner that Parliament were perfectly correct, official and proper, and let us all play the game together."
It is quite true. I said: "We are championing and defending the constitutional rights of the London County Council." So we are. I do not want to be defiant to this House, but I have spent 20 years of my life, and more, trying to get some civic and municipal self-respect into the heads and the hearts and the minds of this easy-going crowd of Londoners, and have partly succeeded, with the aid of my friends. I asked London to respect itself as a city and as a local self-governing unit, within, the Powers conferred upon it by Parliament. I have asked the London County Council and the citizens of London


to live up to the ancient traditions of the City of London Corporation. Talk about fighting Parliament; why, the City Corporation fought kings, and beat them. I say, as a Londoner, a cockney born and bred, that I am proud, Tory though that corporation is, of the work that the ancient corporation of the City of London did for British liberty, for local government rights and for the democratic rights of the people against absolutist kings. I believe I am in their tradition and in their line.
So I said, and my friends said, "Parliament has conferred powers upon us. Within those powers and within those rights we were elected by the citizens of London to govern this city, and we are going to govern it." That is what I said. What is wrong about it? Could anything be more respectable and Conservative? Anything more in accordance with the doctrines of the Constitutional Club? Nothing. I merely claim the right to exercise my lawful, local government, statutory powers as a London County Council; that is all. The hon. Member for South Kensington said: "I am not going to let you. I am going to interfere with you. I am going to get the House of Commons to pass a particular Instruction that you should do a particular thing in a particular way." He succeeded.
I admit the complete supremacy of Parliamentary institutions. It is the glory of our Constitution that this House is in the end above everything. But the House, if it wants the Constitution to run smoothly, must be like every other organ of public authority; it must not go beyond what is wise and expedient and sensible if it wants the machine to run properly and if it wants the relations between Parliament and the local authorities to run smoothly. I admit that I have said these strong and vigorous things. I feel deeply about the rights of my city. I often feel that London is more like a Crown Colony than any city in the country. We have less local self-government than any city in the country, and I do not like it, but I suppose I must put up with it, owing to the way in which the laws are passed in this House and in the other House
But, when all that is said and done, my friends on the London County Council

and myself have as much right to civic patriotism as the Birmingham Corporation. We have as much right to independent jurisdiction in self-government as the great corporations of the provinces, and hon. Members who represent these great provincial cities know as well as I do that they are not willing that they shall be interfered with in their judgment improperly. They are very keen about their civic rights and their rights of self-government. Unlike what happens in London, if the rights of the corporation in Birmingham, or Manchester, or Leeds are attacked, it is the common practice of all Members of Parliament who represent those cities to stand solid, foursquare for their city and champion its cause in this House. Not so in my poor old London. It is better than it was. Nearly every London Member who votes in the Division to-night will vote with me. It used not to be so; we were divided and all over the place, and I felt deeply about the ill-defended rights of London. Is there anything wrong about that?
May I put it to hon. Gentlemen that there have been in the history of British local government great Tory municipal administrators who have stood up for the rights of their cities with just as much violence—not physical violence, but violence of language—with just as much determination and with just as much aggression as I have stood up for the rights of the London County Council? Let me give three examples that practically every hon. Member will remember. There was Joseph Chamberlain in Birmingham, and the work that he did in Birmingham over those years in making that city into a great city with a fine local government, with a splendid degree of municipal self-respect, and with great municipal enterprise. As a result, they have Socialist water, gas, electricity, trams, omnibuses arid so on. They even have a bank under the leadership of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such is the great civic tradition of Birmingham. The fight for the solidarity of its civic administration was the great work of Joseph Chamberlain, and I like to feel that, in my work for London, there is a bit of the Joseph Chamberlain about me. I love my city. Do not let us be small enough not to be able to admire Joseph Chamberlain as a city administrator. I do. He was one of the greatest civic


administrators in this country, and he developed a patriotism for his city. I am bitten with the same kind of thing.
Then there was Sir Charles Wilson, of Leeds—Charlie Wilson. So much did he identify his city with himself that, in a Parliamentary Committee upstairs, when he was asked, "Well, Sir Charles, what does Leeds think about this?" he replied: "Leeds? I am Leeds." I have not got to that. Charlie Wilson loved Leeds. He would have fought you all to a standstill for the civic sights of Leeds. Am I wrong because I do the same thing? You admired and respected him for it. I want you to admire me for doing the same thing.
Finally, there was Sir Archibald Salvidge at Liverpool—a very great municipal administrator and an enormous political power. He would have fought for Liverpool against the whole lot of you, would he not? You know it. Why cannot I, a poor simple Cockney, have as much right to be proud of my city? He fought for his rights as the Tory Members of municipal corporations in the Provinces generally fight for theirs. That is all that I have done and all that I am doing. Let the House say to itself if it wishes, "This lad has been very impudent. He has said things he ought never to have said. He has used language which some people think is defiant, but we do not think it should be interpreted in that way. He is a bit cranky about the London that he loves so much, but he is just like Joseph Chamberlain, Salvidge and Wilson and we had better let him off and give him his whole Bill." That is the human thing that the House of Commons is capable of doing and it is going to do it to-night. This is a new House. I am not going to say whether it is a better one than the last. I think it is. I am in this and I was not in the last. But that may be sheer prejudice. I hope the House will give us the Bill. The issue before the House is not grant or no grant. That is irrelevant. The Parliamentary Secretary agrees. The issue is whether the council is to be permitted to borrow.
It is only fair to tell the House—I do not want to deceive it—that on financial merits borrowing powers are good but there is not much in it so far as finance is concerned. There is much more in the grant. I must tell the House in all honesty that, if this Bill is passed, the

council will go to the Minister and ask for a grant, as we have a perfect right to do. I hope the Government will be disposed to treat us the same as they would any other local authority. But that is not the issue that is being settled to-night. Let not the House worry itself about that issue. The sole issue is whether you are going to put these borrowing powers in the Bill. It has been a great controversy over many years. If I have said things that I ought not to have said, do not ask me to apologise. That is asking too much. If I have offended the House, I am sorry. I would not offend the House. If I have offended Members, I am sorry. It has been a great argument. We have been fighting for what we believe to be a great constitutional principle. The hon. Member for South Kensington is fighting for a constitutional principle as he sees it. It is a great pity that the good relations between this House and the next greatest public authority in the country, the London County Council, should be bad, that the relations between us and the Ministry of Transport should be poisoned by this business. I ask this new House, not necessarily saying that all that we have done is right or is wrong, to do the big thing, to give us this Bill, unfettered and undamaged, by a big and emphatic majority.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: We have listened to an attractive and eloquent but, if you read it carefully, very irrelevant speech. That is not difficult to establish. May I first of all deal with one point of Parliamentary tactics, procedure—call it what you will—the right hon. Gentleman's complaint that some of those who oppose municipal Bills in this House are in the practice of issuing Whips with some reference to the Socialist party. I have been associated with opposition to more novel proposals which I thought at the time objectionable than anyone else. On not a single occasion have my friends and I who act together in this manner ever issued a Whip of that kind. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have been a little more careful. Is it entirely an accident that I saw sitting on the bench opposite a moment ago the representatives of Carnarvon, Edinburgh, Leeds, Sheffield and other great centres of popu-


lation? Were they attracted here to-night merely by the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman? Neither he nor I believe that. They were here because the party opposite has been very active in saying, "We must have a good show to-night." Do not bring in that sort of stuff. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I agree, but why make complaints when others do it?
Do not let us be humbugs in that way. People send out a Whip when there is a debate on, and put in whatever words they think will draw support. I have not done the kind of thing of which the right hon. Gentleman complains. I have never sent out a Whip in which I have prejudiced an issue which was not an issue between Conservatism and Socialism by making reference to Socialism. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must not get annoyed. I listened very patiently to the right hon. Gentleman. The only time that I interjected was when he said that that great body were spending £40,000,000, and I hinted that it was £10,000,000 too much. Instead of replying, he said that I had had no municipal experience. Strictly speaking that is not true. My experience started before his and for the last seven weeks I have been constantly serving on committees considering what powers municipalities should have in future. There is no particular argument in saying that somebody does not know something about it until you have found out. The right hon. Gentleman compared himself to Chamberlain, Charlie Wilson and Archibald Salvidge What did Wilson say—"I am Leeds," but within 12 months he was out of office. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had better be careful. Has he ever heard of the mouse that once went wandering into a wine-cellar and consumed some of the drippings, and said, "Where is that something cat that chased me last night?" The right hon. Gentleman is rather like that on this issue.
What is the issue? I was always in opposition to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and always thought that the bridge should be pulled down, and I voted that way in 1926. I could never understand why the Government appointed a Royal Commission. I think that that Government of which I was a member made a great mistake. After

the Royal Commission was appointed the council came back to Parliament and asked for sanction for a loan. The right hon. Gentleman is playing with words in saying that we do not control the purpose, but only the money. That is special pleading. If we say that we will not allow a loan for that purpose, we are saying that we do not approve of the Bill. It is poor pedantry to try and prove otherwise by reading Section (4) of the London Consolidation Act, 1912. That does not bear on the issue. The right hon. Gentleman is an acute politician, and I do not blame him. He said "When I was in power." They are dangerous words to use. Remember Charlie Wilson again! I took part in the Debate and voted that they should have the money, but Parliament decided otherwise. He and his friends should think of the little mouse. I do not know how they stimulate themselves, but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not do it judging by the advice he gave to a Scottish paper. He said, "We are not going to be done in by Parliament. We are the big lads and the big noises. We are not afraid of anybody." And then with an innumerable battery of pickaxes like Ajax defying the lightning he struck the first stone from the bridge. Last year he said, "I do not mind what you do. If you give me a loan I shall be happy. If you do not, you will give me a grievance." The electors of London have not taken up the grievance. Our main grievance is the extravagance of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I am a London ratepayer and have a right to complain. The rates are going up. Every time I get a demand note it is for a greater amount than the previous one. What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is a terror to the chairman of his Standing Committee? He is not a very efficient terror if he professes to be a believer in economy. I am sorry to speak from the personal standpoint, but the right hon. Gentleman made a very personal speech.
What is the issue? Parliament was asked by the county council to give approval to the expenditure of money for a series of specific purposes. Our procedure permits Parliament to select any one or more of those specific purposes and to propose an Instruction that it should not be approved. That clearly


means that we do not approve the purpose. When Parliament took its decision, as I think wrongly, in 1932 to refuse the London County Council, that was a decision which the then county council of constitutionally-minded people accepted. Then we had a change of control, and the successors said, "We have a right to do this, we have a statutory authority." The right hon. Gentleman said Parliament must not interfere. Those are challenging words to use to Parliament. They are words which no municipal authority wisely uses to Parliament. There is no power which Parliament has not given to the London County Council and which Parliament cannot take away. We could repeal any provision in every London County Council Act. We have not reached the stage of having local Lenins and Trotskies in our municipal authorities.
The issue is a simple one, that a municipal authority, in the most formal and explicit way it could do, denied the power of Parliament. It was done in the most provocative way conceivable. When the right hon. Gentleman went with his pickaxe and a battery of camera men it was obvious that he was doing it in the most provocative way he could think of to impress the people of London with the idea, "We are not going to be dictated to by Parliament." It is on that alone that I join issue. If the London County Council wants to give itself airs of that kind it will not do the London County Council and its leader

any harm if Parliament occasionally gives them a lesson in modesty. Whenever I find myself guilty of the folly of being over-pushful I always find that it does not pay. Most of us have domestic relatives who attend to that, even if it is not done in public places. It cannot do the least conceivable harm to the London County Council to be told that there are things they cannot do.

I am sorry that I was provoked to make some comment during the speech of the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and to use words which perhaps were not appropriate to one of his distinction and age. We have sat on opposite sides, but we have always been very good friends for many years, and I should regret if it was thought that I had said anything that might be regarded as personal. This question has been debated for three and a-half hours and in going to a Division I would ask the House to make it clear again that a municipality must not flout the will of Parliament. I hope the House will vote by a large majority for the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).

Question put,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Unopposed Bills to leave out paragraph (c) of Item 9 of Part I of the Schedule with regard to the demolition of Waterloo Bridge and the erection of a new bridge.

The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 186.

Division No. 245.]
AYES.
[10.55 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
De la Bère, R.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Duggan, H. J.
McKie, J. H.


Balnell, Lord
Eastwood, J. F.
Magnay, T.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Emery, J. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Boulton, W. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Errington, E.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Bracken, B.
Findlay, Sir E.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fleming, E. L.
Penny, Sir G.


Bull, B. B.
Foot, D. M.
Petherick, M.


Cary, R. A.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hannah, I. C.
Salt, E. W.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Crooke, J. S.
Hepworth, J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Cross, R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Storey, S.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)




Touche, G. C.
Warrender, Sir V.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Wakefield, W. W.
Wayland, Sir W. A.



Wallace, Captain Euan
Williams, C. (Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Sir William Davison and Mr.




Herbert Williams.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Messer, F.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mliner, Major J.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Albery, I. J.
Groves, T. E.
Montague, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Ammon, C. G.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll,N.W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Naylor, T. E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Oliver, G. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Banfield, J. W.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Parker, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peake, O.


Batey, J.
Harbord, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hardle, G. D.
Potts, J.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pownall, sir Assheton


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.


Benson, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Bernays, R. H.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Radford, E. A.


Broad, F. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Co'onel A. P.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bromfield, W.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ritson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Burke, W. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rowson, G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack, N.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Salter, Dr. A.


Chater, D.
Hulbert, N. J.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Cluse, W. S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sexton, T. M.


Cocks, F. S.
Jackson, Sir H.
Shinwell, E.


Colman, N. C. D.
Jagger, J.
Short, A.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silkin, L.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Culverwell, C. T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Brace well (Dulwich)


Daggar, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dalton, H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keeling, E. H.
Stephen, C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dawson, Sir P.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lathan, G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Dobbie, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leckie, J. A.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lesile, J. R.
Walkden, A. G.


Elliston, G. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Walker, J.


Entwistle, C. F.
Loftus, P. C.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Logan, D. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
McGhee, H. G.
White, H. Graham


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
McGovern, J.
Whiteley, W.


Gallacher, W.
MacLaren, A.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gardner, B. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Maclean, N.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibbins, J.
Markham, S. F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Marklew, E.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mathers, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Maxton, J.
Mr. C. R. Strauss and Mr. Selley.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.